Sobczyk, 2021

materials
Review
Strength Characterization of Soils’ Properties at High Strain
Rates Using the Hopkinson Technique—A Review of
Experimental Testing
Kamil Sobczyk , Ryszard Chmielewski * , Leopold Kruszka and Ryszard Rekucki
Department of Military Engineering and Military Infrastructure, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy,
Military University of Technology, 2 Gen. Sylwester Kaliski Str., 00-908 Warsaw, Poland;
kamil.sobczyk@wat.edu.pl (K.S.); leopold.kruszka@wat.edu.pl (L.K.); ryszard.rekucki@wat.edu.pl (R.R.)
* Correspondence: ryszard.chmielewski@wat.edu.pl
Abstract: The paper presents a review of crucial experiments and the latest publications, presenting
the previous and current trends in experimental research in 2018–2021 in the area of soil dynamic
interaction based on the Hopkinson bar technique. A review of investigated experimental test
stands was made, in particular, cohesive and non-cohesive soil specimens prepared with different
dimensions and densities. From this study, it can be concluded that the dynamic response of the soil
depends on many factors, e.g., density, cohesion, moisture and grain structure of the soil specimen.
There is still a noticeable interest in SHPB experiments performed in both 1D and 3D versions under
modified conditions (frozen/heated soil specimen, different degree of water saturation content of
the soil sample) in a wide range of strain rates 102 –104 s−1 , which is a large field for further research.
The need to learn about the characteristics of various types of soil (both cohesive and non-cohesive)

for the selection of structural design solutions for the protection elements of critical infrastructure
Citation: Sobczyk, K.; Chmielewski, was emphasized.
R.; Kruszka, L.; Rekucki, R. Strength
Characterization of Soils’ Properties Keywords: high strain rate; soil; split Hopkinson pressure bar; review
at High Strain Rates Using the
Hopkinson Technique—A Review of
Experimental Testing. Materials 2022,
15, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
ma15010274
Knowledge of both the static and dynamic behavior of the soil is important in geotech-
Academic Editors: Tomasz Sadowski nical issues in building construction, in particular in the area of building foundations.
and Eligiusz Postek The soil medium may be subjected to various static and dynamic loads. According to
current reports, there are currently many threats to the safety of load-bearing structures of
Received: 13 November 2021
buildings, including the subsoil [1–3], in particular:
Accepted: 27 December 2021
Published: 30 December 2021 (I) Threats as a result of natural disasters—floods, landslides, storms, hurricanes, torna-
does, snowstorms;
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
(II) Threats related to intentional human activity—military and terrorist activities in the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
form of a bomb explosion, rocket attack, use of an explosive;
published maps and institutional affil-
(III) Threats related to unintended human activity—accidents and collisions, construc-
iations.
tion errors of building structures, improper operation and maintenance of building
structures.
Some of these threats (e.g., landslide, missile attack) are dynamic interactions and
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. generate a soil strain rate of 102 –104 s−1 . Further behavior of the soil loaded in this way is
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. of great importance for the maintenance of the foundation of the building and the possible
This article is an open access article consequences in the form of a construction disaster. Construction works can also have a
distributed under the terms and dynamic effect on the surrounding buildings, e.g., dynamic soil compaction or driving of
conditions of the Creative Commons foundation piles. There is need to understand the characteristics of different types of soil
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
(both cohesive and non-cohesive) in the best possible way in order to properly select design
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
and construction solutions for buildings, protective elements and critical infrastructure. For
4.0/).
Materials 2022, 15, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010274 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2022, 15, 274 2 of 29
this, a split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) test stand is used. This apparatus allows one
to determine the dynamic characteristics of the analyzed soil and to learn the stress–strain
relationship, taking into account the strain rate for a known density, moisture and grain
structure of the soil specimen. In the case of the procedure of determining the constitutive
model of soil subjected to dynamic action, additional experiments are required to determine
the necessary coefficients and frequencies.
The SHPB stand is designed, depending on its configuration, to test construction mate-
rials for dynamic effects—metal [4–16], concrete [17–20], wood, rocks [21–29], soil [30–50]
and other materials such as polymers, ceramics, etc. [51–58].
The dynamic properties of the soils are also studied using various methods, for
example, bent elements and a resonance column, offering a medium-to-high frequency
spectrum capable of capturing the dynamic constitutive behavior of the soil [59].
In recent years, reviews and comparisons of studies for various strain rates have been
made using the Hopkinson bar technique [60–64]. In the area of soil, significant reviews
were carried out in 2012 [65] and 2015 [66]. The aim of this study was to make a compilation
of the current crucial research trends in the area of soils tested with dynamic interaction
induced by the Hopkinson bar technique.
2. Strain Rate Ranges

Over the last several decades, many experimental devices have been used to deter-
mine the characteristics of the reaction of the impact on materials through the degree of
deformability at various ranges of strain rates. In both the military and commercial civil
industries, the dynamic response of the material is a broad and crucial field for scientific
analysis. Essentially, a general division can be made that materials deform differently under
the action of static and dynamic loads. There are divisions presented in Table 1 according
to the ranges of the strain rate and the corresponding experimental techniques. The data
were compiled based on strain range analyses for various materials [67–69].
Table 1. List of ranges of strain rate and experimental techniques.
Strain Rate (s−1 ) Experimental Techniques

108 Inertia Plate impact
Shock/Ultra-high
106 important Taylor impact
104 Hopkinson bar
High rate
102
Hard impact
Medium rate/ Hydraulic devices
100 (missiles, rock falls) Earthquake and
Inertia Intermediate
induced shocks
10−2 negligible Quasi-static Plane crash
10−4 Vehicle impact
Conventional
Creep and stress cross-head devices Static load
10−6 relaxation (consolidation,
10−8 rheology)
The development in the area of conducting experiments of the strain rate of many
materials in various ranges allows for the precise determination of their characteristics and
correlation with the actual conditions of their work. The commonly used experimental
tests are summarized in Table 2; in particular, the respective ranges of strain rates are
included [68].
Materials 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Materials 2022, 15, 274 Table 2. Experimental research taking into account the ranges of the strain rate.
3 of 29
Strain Rate (𝐬 −𝟏 ) Experimental Techniques

Compression
Table 2. Experimental research taking into account tests
the ranges of the strain rate.
−1
Below 10 −1 Conventional load frames
Strain Rate (s ) Experimental Techniques
−1 2
10 − 10 Special servo-hydraulic frames
Compression tests
−1 3
10 − 0.5 ∙ 10
Below 10−1
Cam plastometer and drop test
Conventional load frames
1 4
10 10 −−110 –102
Split Hopkinson pressure bar
Special servo-hydraulic frames
3 5
10 10− 10·103
−1 –0.5 Taylor impact test
Cam plastometer and drop test
5
Above 104
101 –10 Single-
Split and pressure
Hopkinson two-stage bar gas gun
103 –105 TensionTaylor
test impact test
−15
Below Above1010 Conventional
Single- and two-stage gas load
gun frames
−1 2
10 − 10 Tension test Special servo-hydraulic frames
2 31
10 Below
− 10 10 − Split Hopkinson pressure
Conventional bar (in tension version
load frames
41
10 −
10 –10 2 Expanding
Special servo-hydraulic ring
frames
5
Above 2 10
10 –10 3 Split Hopkinson pressureFlyer
bar (inplate
tension version)
4
10 Shear and multiaxial tests
Expanding ring
−1 5
Below Above1010 Conventional
Flyer plate shear tests
−1 2
10 − 10 Shear and multiaxial tests
Special servo-hydraulic frames
1Below 10− 31 Conventional shear tests
10 − 10 Torsional impact
− 1
2 10 –104 2 Special servo-hydraulic frames
10 − 10 Split Hopkinson pressure bar (in torsion version
3 101 –1034 Torsional impact
10 − 10 Double-notch shear and punch
4 102 –1047 Split Hopkinson pressure bar (in torsion version)
10 − 10 Pressure-shear plate impact
103 –104 Double-notch shear and punch
4 7 Pressure-shear plate impact
3. SHPB Test10Stand
–10 and General Principle of the Experiment
The technique of the split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) allows for the stu
3. SHPB Test Stand and General Principle of the Experiment
analysis of the phenomenon of co-interaction of soils and their behavior as a re
The technique of the split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) allows for the study and
dynamic
analysis of impact with a measuring
the phenomenon bar on
of co-interaction the tested
of soils and theirsoil. A schematic
behavior visualizatio
as a result of
asplit Hopkinson
dynamic pressure
impact with bar is bar
a measuring shown intested
on the Figure 1 [70]
soil. and thevisualization
A schematic actual view of the
of the split
mental Hopkinson
stand pressure
in Figure bar is shown
2—both in Figure
drawings refer1 [70] andexample
to an the actualof
view
an ofexperiment
the
experimental stand in Figure 2—both drawings refer to an example of an experimental stand
that is used for teaching and scientific research at the Department of Military Eng
that is used for teaching and scientific research at the Department of Military Engineering
andInfrastructure
and Infrastructure within
within the existing
the existing structurestructure
Faculty ofFaculty of Civil and
Civil Engineering Engineering
Geodesy and G
atthe
at theMilitary
Military University
University of Technology
of Technology in Warsaw.
in Warsaw.
Figure
Figure General
1. 1. scheme
General of the SHPB
scheme of thestand
SHPBat Department of Military Engineering
stand at Department and Infrastructure,
of Military Engineering and In
MUT (reprinted from Ref. [70]).
ture, MUT (reprinted from Ref. [70]).
Materials 2022, 15, 274 4 of 29
Figure Real
Figure2. 2. view
Real of the
view ofSHPB stand atstand
the SHPB Department of Military of
at Department Engineering
Military and Infrastructure,
Engineering and Infras
MUT
MUT(reprinted fromfrom
(reprinted Ref. [70]).
Ref. [70]).
The SHPB test stand shown in Figures 1 and 2 consists of the following elements:
The SHPB test stand shown in Figures 1 and 2 consists of the following elem
A—pneumatic cannon;
A—pneumaticensuring
B—construction cannon; bar alignment;
B—construction
C—barrel of loadingensuring bar alignment;
bar projectile;
D—bar projectile;
C—barrel of loading bar projectile;
E—initiating measuring bar;
D—bar projectile;
F—strain gauge set;
E—initiating
G—rigid measuring
confining casing; bar;
F—strain
H—soil gauge set;
specimen;
G—rigid confining
I—transmitting casing;
measuring bar;
J—damper;
H—soil specimen;
K—laser timekeeping system;
I—transmitting measuring bar;
L—measuring device with digital memory and computer software.
J—damper;
In order to facilitate the identification of individual elements of the experimental stand
presented intimekeeping
K—laser Figures 1 and system;
2, the letters from A to L were used. The bar projectile/striker
L—measuring
(D) device
moves in the barrel with
of the digital
launcher andmemory and
increases its computer
speed as a resultsoftware.
of frontal pressure;
the compressed air is rapidly released from the pneumatic gun—compressed air is supplied
In order to facilitate the identification of individual elements of the exper
by the compressor (A). At the moment of leaving the barrel of the launcher, the time is
stand presented
measured which allows in Figures 1 and 2,the
one to determine thespeed
letters from
of the bar A to L were used.
projectile/striker at theThe bar
tile/striker
moment (D) moves
of hitting in the
the initiating barrel
bar. of the
The laser lightlauncher and increases
beam (K) measures the timeits thatspeed
the as a r
bar projectile/striker has traveled the previously known measurement
frontal pressure; the compressed air is rapidly released from the pneumatic distance, e.g., 0.1 m. gun
When the front of the bar projectile/striker hits the front of the initiating bar (E), an elastic
pressed air is supplied by the compressor (A). At the moment of leaving the barr
wave is generated having a compressive nature (the incident wave is responsible for the
launcher,ofthe
formation the time is measured
initiating bar deformation which ε I ),allows one tomoves
which further determine
along thistheinitiating
speed of the
jectile/striker
bar at thesample
toward the tested moment soilof
(H)hitting
placedthe in ainitiating
casing/tube bar.
(G)The laser light
dedicated beam (K) m
to a given
the time that
experiment. When thethebarwave
projectile/striker
reaches the end has traveled
of the initiatingthebar,previously
the phenomenon known of measu
partial wave passage through the tested soil sample toward the transmitting
distance, e.g., 0.1 m. When the front of the bar projectile/striker hits the front of t bar (I) takes
place (the transmitting wave is responsible for the deformation of the transmitting bar ε T ).
ating bar (E), an elastic wave is generated having a compressive nature (the incide
The remaining part of the generated wave is partially reflected—it carries out the return
is responsible
path for the
to the beginning formation
of the front of theof initiating
the initiating barreflected
bar (the deformation 𝜀 𝐼 ), which furthe
wave is responsible
along
for this initiating
the deformation bar
in the towardbar
initiating ε Rtested
the ). The firstsample
part ofsoil
the (H)
waveplaced
finally in a casing/tube
reaches the (
shock absorber (J) passing its path through the test sample
icated to a given experiment. When the wave reaches the end of the initiating and the entire length of the
transmitting bar. The generated pulses received from the strain gauges are recorded and
phenomenon of partial wave passage through the tested soil sample toward the tr
saved using a multi-channel conditioner and recorder (L). Ultimately, the data in the form
ting
of bar (I)
a digital takes
signal willplace (the transmitting
be transferred to dedicated wave computer is responsible
software. The for the deformatio
illustration of
𝑇
transmitting
the bar 𝜀 ). The
described phenomenon remainingshown
is schematically part of the generated
in Figure 3 [70]. wave is partially refle
carries out the return path to the beginning of the front of the initiating bar (the r
wave is responsible for the deformation in the initiating bar 𝜀 𝑅 ). The first part of th
finally reaches the shock absorber (J) passing its path through the test sample
entire length of the transmitting bar. The generated pulses received from the strain
are recorded and saved using a multi-channel conditioner and recorder (L). Ult
the data in the form of a digital signal will be transferred to dedicated computer so
The illustration of the described phenomenon is schematically shown in Figure 3
are used to make the casing/tube, adapted to the conditions of a given test, e.g.,
duralumin. The characteristics of the material used and the ratio of the thickn
length of the casing/tube allow for uniaxial deformation of the soil sample at the m
Materials 2022, 15, 274 of pressing the front initiating and transmitting bars on both sides of5 ofthe
29 tested
fronts.
Figure Wave
Figure3. 3. Wave diagram showing
diagram the phenomenon
showing of propagationof
the phenomenon of propagation
elastic waves in SHPB (reprinted
of elastic waves in S
from Ref. [70]).
printed from Ref. [70]).
As a result of the experiment using the SHPB test stand, it is possible to calculate the
.
strength dynamic parameters (stress σ, strain ε and strain rate ε). Assumptions must be
made for the further determination of the equations:
P1 (t) ∼
= P2 (t) (1)
ε I (t) + ε R (t) ∼
= ε T (t) (2)
A = A0 (3)
where:
P1 —force at the end of the initiating bar;
P2 —force at the end of the transmitting bar;
ε I —strain in the bar for the initiating wave;
ε R —strain in the bar for the reflected wave;
ε T —strain in the bar for the transmitting wave;
A0 —cross-sectional area of the sample;
A—cross-sectional area of the bars.
Equation to determine stress σ(t) as a function of time:
σ(t) ∼
= ± E·ε T (t) (4)
Equation to determine strain ε(t) as a function of time:

Z t
2· c0
ε(t) ∼
=± · ε R (t) dt (5)
L0 0
.
Equation to determine strain rate ε(t) as a function of time:
. 2· c0 R
ε(t) = ·ε (t) (6)
L0
where:
E—Young’s modulus of the material from which the bars are made;
c0 —elastic wave propagation velocity in the longitudinal direction of the bar;
L0 —sample length.
During the dynamic test using the SHPB stand, certain specific standards are applied—
the test sample in the experiment has a cylindrical shape. For the duration of the experiment,
the soil sample is kept in the casing/tube (Figure 4 [71])—various materials are used to
make the casing/tube, adapted to the conditions of a given test, e.g., steel or duralumin.
The characteristics of the material used and the ratio of the thickness and length of the
Materials 2022, 15, 274 6 of 29

casing/tube allow for uniaxial deformation of the soil sample at the moment of pressing
the front initiating and transmitting bars on both sides of the tested sample fronts.
Figure 4. Cylindrical soil specimen in casing/tube (reprinted from Ref. [71]).

Figure 4. Cylindrical soil specimen in casing/tube (reprinted from Ref. [71]).
4. Current Trends in Soil Dynamic Research Using the Hopkinson Bar Technique
4. Current
As part ofTrends ina Soil
this paper, Dynamic
literature Research
review was Using
carried out the of
in the area Hopkinson
dynamic testsBar
of Tech
cohesive and non-cohesive soils using the Hopkinson bar technique ([61,66]). A compilation
As part
of the current of this
crucial paper,
research a literature
trends in the area review was carried
of soils loaded out inimpact
with a dynamic the area
by of dy
of cohesive
applying and non-cohesive
the Hopkinson bar technique soils using the Hopkinson bar technique ([61,66]
in 2018–2021:
•lation
2018of the current crucial research trends in the area of soils loaded with
impact
(I) by applying the Hopkinson bar technique in 2018–2021:
Test Soil Material: Dry and water-saturated sand
• 2018
Authors: Bragov, A.M.; Balandin, V.V.; Igumnov, L.A.; Kotov, V.L.; Kruszka, L.; Lomunov,
A.K.
Order
(I) of Cited Paper: [72]
Highlights/Abstract: The work presents and analyzes new research achievements in the
TestofSoil
field Material:theoretical
experimental, Dry andand water-saturated
numerical dynamic sand
sand interaction—experiments
Authors: Bragov, А.М.; Balandin, V.V.;
were performed for the cases of sand saturated with water and dryIgumnov, L.А.;
sand, Коtov,
which was V.L.; K
subjected
Lomunov, to impact
А.K and penetration with the use of cylindrical beaters (the speed range
from 50 to 450 m/s). The reverse experiment technique was used—the end face of the
Order of Cited Paper: [72]
measuring bar in the variants of the flat, hemispheric and conical heads was dynamically
Highlights/Abstract:
struck The work
with the use of a container presents
containing sand and
insideanalyzes newItresearch
the test heads. is possibleachievem
to
field of experimental,
determine the parameters oftheoretical and numerical
dynamic compressibility dynamic
and shear sand
resistance interaction—e
of compacted
water-saturated
were performed sand as
fora result of calculations
the cases of sandofsaturated
the maximum and water
with quasi-stationary
and dryvalues
sand, whic
of the resistance to penetration in the variant of a flat-head striker. In accordance with the
jected to impact and penetration with the use of cylindrical beaters (the speed
conditions of the mechanics of continuous media in the axisymmetric range, a numerical
50 to 450
analysis m/s).
of the The reverse
resistance parameterexperiment
was performed technique was used—the
for the penetration of impactorsend
intoface
the of the
barmedium—this
soil in the variants of the
allowed flat,
for the hemispheric
determination of theand conicalofheads
parameters was dynamically
the Grigoryan model.
A close convergence of the results obtained between the computational and experimental
the use of a container containing sand inside the test heads. It is possible to de
analysis was confirmed. The thesis is correct that the compacted sand in the variant of
parameters
complete of dynamic
saturation with watercompressibility andofshear
achieves weaker results resistancenevertheless,
shear properties; of compacted w
rated sand
significant as are
values a result of calculations
still maintained of the
for the dynamic maximum
impact and
interaction quasi-stationary
velocity. Schematic va
system for thetoexperimental
resistance penetration measurement is shown
in the variant ofina Figure 5.
flat-head striker. In accordance wi
ditions of the mechanics of continuous media in the axisymmetric range, a num
ysis of the resistance parameter was performed for the penetration of impacto
soil medium—this allowed for the determination of the parameters of the
model. A close convergence of the results obtained between the computational
imental analysis was confirmed. The thesis is correct that the compacted sand
ant of complete saturation with water achieves weaker results of shear proper
Materials 2022, 15, 274 7 of 29
Figure 5. Schematic system for the experimental measurement of the forces resisting the penetration
Figure 5. the
process in Schematic system
reverse test for the
(reprinted fromexperimental
Ref. [72]). measurement of the forces resisting the pen
process in the reverse test (reprinted from Ref. [72]).
(II)
(II)
Test Soil Material: Water-saturated sand
Authors:
Test SoilWang, S.; Shen,
Material: L.; Maggi, F.; El-Zein,
Water-saturated sand A.; Nguyen, G.D.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, H.;
Chen, Z.
Authors: Wang, S.; Shen, L.; Maggi, F.; El-Zein, A.; Nguyen, G.D.; Zheng, Y.; Zha
Chen, Z.
Highlights/Abstract: The sand from Stockton Beach, partially water-saturated, was tested
Order
on a split ofHopkinson
Cited Paper: [73]bar to determine the compressive action at high strain rate
pressure
in the soil under analysis.
Highlights/Abstract: The sand The essencefromof theStockton
research was to determine
Beach, partially how the saturation
water-saturated, wa
of the sample with water at the existing initial dry sample density affects the selected
on a split Hopkinson pressure bar to determine the compressive action at high str
parameters: initial deformation, energy absorption and grain crushing in the analyzed
in
soilthe
fromsoil underBeach
Stockton analysis. The essence
for specific experimentalof the research
conditions inwas to determine
the form how the sat
of average strain
of the sample with 3 water
− 1 at the existing
3 − 1 initial dry sample
rates between 1 × 10 s and 1.3 × 10 s . The samples were located inside a cured steel density affects the selec
3 3 3
rameters:
pipe, and the initial deformation,
dry density energytoabsorption
was determined be 1.46 g/cmand , 1.57grain
g/cmcrushing in the
and 1.69 g/cm analyz
with a water
from Stockton Beachsaturation level of the sample from 0% to over 90%. Sand
for specific experimental conditions in the form of averag samples with a
density of 1.57 g/cm3 during the test were also placed in polycarbonate chambers—they
rates between 1 × 10 s−1 and 1.3 × 103 s−1. The samples were located inside a cure
3
have a different wall thickness. After carrying out the tests, it was possible to define the
pipe, and that
conclusion the sand
dry density
with partial was determined
water to be 1.46 on
saturation depending g/cm 3, 1.57 g/cm3 and 1.69 g/cm
the stress–strain reaction
ashows
water saturation
stiffness leveltogether
increasing of the with
sample fromdensity
the initial 0% to ofover 90%.
the dry Sand
sand samples
sample before with a
water lock-up. This phenomenon is reversed—stiffness decreases
of 1.57 g/cm during the test were also placed in polycarbonate chambers—they
3 with increasing water
saturation in the sample. The tendency to increase the stiffness is generated by the stiffness
different wall thickness. After carrying out the tests, it was possible to define the
of the sample closure only when enclosed in a steel tube. The phenomenon of energy
sion that sand
absorption at thewith
stress partial water saturation
level present depending
tends to increase togetheron withthea stress–strain
decrease in thereaction
stiffness
stiffness ofincreasing
the tube casingtogether
(softer)with
and the initialindensity
a decrease of density
the initial the dryofsand the drysample
sand befor
sample. After the impact was performed in accordance
lock-up. This phenomenon is reversed—stiffness decreases with increasing with the test methodology, the water
crushed
tion sandsample.
in the grains were Thecollected
tendency fortochecking—a
increase the quantitative
stiffnessanalysis of the grain
is generated by the stiff
crushing was performed based on Hardin’s relative fracture potential. It was observed that
the sample closure only when enclosed in a steel tube. The phenomenon of ene
the occurrence of the sand grain crushing phenomenon increases with the stiffness of the
sorption
tube casingatand thethe
stress
initiallevel presentoftends
dry density to increase
the sample, while it together with a linearly
tends to decrease decrease in th
ness of the tube
with increasing casing
water (softer)
saturation and
of the a decrease
sample. in the
The results of theinitial density of
tests performed arethe dry sand s
useful
in the calibration and in improving the process of validation
After the impact was performed in accordance with the test methodology, the c of multiphase constitutive
models—it will help in determining the expected dynamic reactions in sands with partial
sand grains were collected for checking—a quantitative analysis of the grain crushi
saturation with water. View of the soil sample inside the tube is shown in Figure 6.
performed based on Hardin’s relative fracture potential. It was observed that the
rence of the sand grain crushing phenomenon increases with the stiffness of the tu
ing and the initial dry density of the sample, while it tends to decrease linearly w
creasing water saturation of the sample. The results of the tests performed are u
the calibration and in improving the process of validation of multiphase constitutiv
els—it will help in determining the expected dynamic reactions in sands with par
uration with water. View of the soil sample inside the tube is shown in Figure 6.
Materials 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 o
Materials 2022, 15, 274 8 of 29
Figure 6. View of the soil sample inside the tube made of EN26 steel and 2.0/3.5 mm thick poly
bonate with measuring bars (reprinted from Ref. [73]). Dimensions are given in millimeters.
(III)
6. View of the soil sample inside the sand,
FigureSoil
Test
Figure Material:
6. View of theSands
soil - Ottawa
sample insidetube
themade of EN26 steel
Euroquartz
tube made of EN26 and 2.0/3.5
Siligran, steelQ-Rokmm thick polycar-
and 2.0/3.5 mm thick poly
bonate
Authors: with measuring
De Cola, bars
F.; (reprinted
Pellegrino, from
A.;Ref. [73]).
Glößner, Dimensions
C.; are
Penumadu, given in
D.;millimeters.
Petrinic, N.
bonate with measuring bars (reprinted from Ref. [73]). Dimensions are given in millimeters.
Order
(III) of Cited Paper: [74]
Highlights/Abstract: The experiment used a test stand in the elongated bar module—l
(III)
Test Soil Material: Sands - Ottawa sand, Euroquartz Siligran, Q-Rok
split
Test Hopkinson
Soil
Authors: Material:
De Cola, F.;pressure
Sands
Pellegrino, bar A.;(LSHPB).
- Ottawa sand,C.;
Glößner, Load
Euroquartz pulsesSiligran,
Penumadu, inPetrinic,
D.; the range N. of up to 1.1 ms w
Q-Rok
generated.
Authors:
Order of CitedDeThe study
Cola,
Paper: F.;
[74]analyzed the
Pellegrino, A.;dependence
Glößner, C.;ofPenumadu,the quantitative mechanical
D.; Petrinic, N. reactio
sand
Order on ofcompression
Cited Paper:
Highlights/Abstract: Theat [74]high strain
experiment ratea test
used (HSR) stand depending
in the elongated on thebar influence
module—long of the follow
split Hopkinson
factors: soil grain
Highlights/Abstract: pressure
shape,Thebar size(LSHPB). Load
usedpulses
distribution
experiment of in the range
individual
a test stand theofelongated
insand up to 1.1 ms
fractions, were
intergranular
bar module—lf
generated.
split The
tion, confinement study
Hopkinson pressure analyzed
and initial the
bar dependence
compaction
(LSHPB). state. of the
Load The quantitative
pulsesapplied mechanical
in thetest variant
range reaction
of up to of
allowed 1.1determ
ms w
sand on compression at high strain rate (HSR) depending on the influence of the following
ing the set of
generated. Thedynamic reactionsthe
study analyzed of various
dependence typesof ofthe
sand in a wide strain
quantitative rate range—s
mechanical reactio
factors: soil grain shape, size distribution of individual sand fractions, intergranular friction,
samples
sand
confinement have anda initial
on compression compaction
at factor
high strain
compaction ranging
rate
state. (HSR)
The from
applied low
depending
test to on
variant the thehighest
allowedinfluencecompaction (wh
of the follow
determining
means
factors: the
soil case
grain of the
shape, lowest
size initial porosity
distribution of coefficient).
individual
the set of dynamic reactions of various types of sand in a wide strain rate range—sand sandThe total
fractions,research analysis
intergranular f
based
tion,
samples onhave
theathree
confinement andtypes
compaction initialof compaction
factorsand usedfrom
ranging in the
state.
lowTheexperiment:
applied
to the highest quasi-spherical
test variant allowed
compaction Ottawa
(which determsa
means
sub-grained
ing the case of
the set ofEuroquartz the lowest
dynamic reactions initial porosity
Siligranofand coefficient).
polyhedral
various types of The total
grain-shaped
sand in a wide research
Q-Rok. analysis
strain For was
therange—s
rate given ty
based on the three types of sand used in the experiment: quasi-spherical Ottawa sand, sub-
of sand, the
samples havephenomena
a compaction of morphology
factor ranging andfrom grainlow sizetowere investigated,
the highest which (wh
compaction cle
grained Euroquartz Siligran and polyhedral grain-shaped Q-Rok. For the given types of
affect
means the
themechanical
case of the reactionlowest initialin theporosity
compression variant.The
coefficient).
sand, the phenomena of morphology and grain size were investigated, which clearly affect
During
totalthe experiment,
research analysis co
tions
based enabling
on the three
the mechanical quasi-uniaxial
reaction typesin the strain
ofcompression
sand andvariant.
used inquasi-uniaxial
the experiment:
During the stress were provided
quasi-spherical
experiment, conditions through
Ottawa sa
use of
sub-grained stiff (Ti64) and
Euroquartz less rigid,
Siligran deformable
and polyhedral (latex) tube
grain-shaped
enabling quasi-uniaxial strain and quasi-uniaxial stress were provided through the use casing. An
Q-Rok. innovative
For the achie
given ty
ment
of stiffof
of sand, this
(Ti64)
the andwork lesswas
phenomena rigid, the determination
deformable
of morphology (latex)andof
tube the effect
casing.
grain sizeAnofwere
intergranular
innovative friction
achievement
investigated, whichon the
cle
of this
amplethe
affect work was
of Euroquartz the
mechanical sanddetermination
reaction of
withina the the effect
polymer of intergranular
coating.variant.
compression SampleDuringfriction on
preparation the example
procedurescon
the experiment, ba
of Euroquartz sand with a polymer coating. Sample preparation procedures based on
on
tionsrepresentative initial consolidation
enabling quasi-uniaxial strain and states were used stress
quasi-uniaxial to maintain the realistic
were provided range
through
representative initial consolidation states were used to maintain the realistic ranges in
natural
use
natural soilstates
of stiff
soil states
(Ti64) from
and
from loose loose
less to dense.
torigid,
dense. The conducted
deformable
The conducted (latex)
researchtuberesearch
iscasing.
important isAnimportant thebecause
innovative
because achie
results
ment allow
resultsofallow relating
this relating
work thethe
was thedetermined
determination
determined parameters
parameters of ofthe of the
theeffect of mechanical
mechanical intergranular dynamic
dynamic reaction in reactio
friction on the
the
ample case of of HSR
Euroquartz to the appropriate
sand with a constitutive
polymer coating.models.Sample
the case of HSR to the appropriate constitutive models. Long split Hopkinson bar setup is Long split
preparationHopkinson bar
procedures setu
ba
shown
shown
on in
inFigure
Figure
representative 7 andand view
7 initial viewof aof casing madestates
a casing
consolidation of (a) stainless
made of (a) used
were steelto
stainless and (b) latex
steel
maintain andis presented
(b)
the latex is presen
realistic range
in Figure
in Figure
natural 8.8. states from loose to dense. The conducted research is important because
soil
results allow relating the determined parameters of the mechanical dynamic reactio
the case of HSR to the appropriate constitutive models. Long split Hopkinson bar setu
shown in Figure 7 and view of a casing made of (a) stainless steel and (b) latex is presen
in Figure 8.
Figure 7.7.Long
Figure Longsplit Hopkinson
split bar setup
Hopkinson (reprinted
bar setup from Ref.
(reprinted [74]).
from Ref. [74]).
Figure 7. Long split Hopkinson bar setup (reprinted from Ref. [74]).
Materials 2022, 15, 274 9 of 29
Figure 8. View of a casing made of (a) stainless steel and (b) latex (reprinted from Ref. [74
(IV)
Test Soil Material: Quartz sand
Authors:
Figure
Figure View
8.8. Barr,
View of aofA.D.;
casing
a casingClarke,
made made S.D.;
of (a)Tyas,
of (a) stainless stainlessA.;(b)
steel and Warren,
steellatex
and J.A.
(reprinted
(b) latexfrom Ref. [74]). from Ref. [74]
(reprinted
(IV)
(IV)
Highlights/Abstract: In order to protect against the negative effects of events and
Test Soil Material: Quartz sand
Test Soil Material:
activities, Quartzor
e.g., explosion sand
fragmentation, gabion structures are used (a gabion s
Authors: Barr, A.D.; Clarke, S.D.; Tyas, A.; Warren, J.A.
Authors:
is filled
Order Barr,
with
of Cited A.D.;
one
Paper: orClarke,
[75] more types S.D.; of Tyas, A.;The
soil). Warren, J.A.
characteristic feature of these even
strain of
Order ratesCited
Highlights/Abstract: andPaper:
stresses [75]at
In order to the time
protect of their
against occurrence.
the negative effects The influence
of events of water co
and various
activities, e.g., explosion
the soil in the gabionInstructure
Highlights/Abstract: or fragmentation,
order to on gabion
the strength
protect structures
against the of theare used (a gabion
entire effects
negative structure structure
was observ
of events and
is filled with one or more types of soil). The characteristic feature of these events is the
situation of
activities, e.g.,large strain or
explosion rates and stressesgabion
fragmentation, in partially
structureswater-saturated
are used (a gabion soils is stn
strain rates and stresses at the time of their occurrence. The influence of water content in
known
is
the soil inand
filled with discussed.
one or
the gabion more
structureFalling thesoil
types
on ofissoil).
strength a wide the field
of The for deepening
characteristic
entire structure feature
was further research—
of these
observed—the even
strain
haviorrates
situation of
of thisandsoil
large stresses
strain theatand
inrates thestresses
area time of
depending in their onoccurrence.
partially different
water-saturated The influence
compaction
soils is not of water co
in different
fully sit
known
e.g.,soil
the and
external discussed.
in theballistics Falling soil is
of a projectile
gabion structure a wide field
on therequires
strength for deepening
further
of theanalyses.further research—the
entire structureThe paper waspresents
observ
behavior of
the compaction
situation this soil
of largeand in the area depending
compressibility
strain rates and stresses on different
of quartz compaction
sand based
in partially in different situations,
on the SHPB stand,
water-saturated soils isden
e.g., external ballistics of a projectile requires further analyses. The paper presents tests of
on compaction
known
the the sample’s and water
and discussed. saturation
Falling
compressibility soil
of level (loose
is a wide
quartz sand soil,
field
based on up
for to 15%stand,
thedeepening
SHPB water content).
further
depending On t
research—
havior
hand, of
for this
a soil in
well-compacted the area depending
sample, the on
water different
content
on the sample’s water saturation level (loose soil, up to 15% water content). On the other compaction
from 0% to in
7.5% different
decreased sitt
e.g.,
hand, external
acteristic ballistics
for a stiffness
well-compacted of theofsample,
aloose
projectile requires
soil.water
the In terms
content further
offrom
the 0%analyses.
waterto 7.5% The
content paper
decreasedlevelthepresents
above 7
characteristic
the compaction
situation stiffness
of full and of the loose soil.
compressibility
water-saturated In terms
soil of of the water
quartzoccurred.
samples content
sand based level above
on the
Before 7.5%,
fullSHPB the
stand, dep
water-saturated
situation of full water-saturated soil samples occurred. Before full water-saturated (below
on the sample’s
7.5%), additionalwater watersaturation
did not result level in (loose soil, up to
the stiffness of 15% watersoil.
the loose content).
However,On th a
7.5%), additional water did not result in the stiffness of the loose soil. However, after full
water-saturated
hand,
water-saturated (above
for a well-compacted
(above 7.5%),7.5%), additional
sample,
additional in water
the water
water in
content
the soil thefrom
pores soil pores
increased0% the increased
to 7.5% of the stit
decreased
stiffness
theloose
the loose
acteristic soil.
stiffness
soil. Schematic
Schematic of system system
the looseof a soil.of aInmodified
modified terms
Hopkinson of Hopkinson
the
barwater
is shown bar
content is shown
in Figure level
9 and in Figu
above 7.
section
situation detailof of specimen
full confinement
water-saturated is
soilpresented
samples
section detail of specimen confinement is presented in Figure 10. in Figure
occurred. 10. Before full water-saturated
7.5%), additional water did not result in the stiffness of the loose soil. However, a
water-saturated (above 7.5%), additional water in the soil pores increased the stif
the loose soil. Schematic system of a modified Hopkinson bar is shown in Figur
section detail of specimen confinement is presented in Figure 10.
Figure 9. Schematic system of a modified Hopkinson split pressure bar for dynamic loading (reprinted
Figure 9. Schematic system of a modified Hopkinson split pressure bar for dynamic loa
from Ref. [75]).
Figure 9. Schematic system of a modified Hopkinson split pressure bar for dynamic loa
Materials 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 29
Materials 2022, 15, 274 10 of 29
Figure 10. Section detail of specimen confinement (reprinted from Ref. [75]).
• 2019
(V)
Test Soil Material: Calcareous sand
Figure 10. Section detail of specimen confinement (reprinted from Ref. [75]).
Authors:
Figure Lv, Y.;
10. Section Liu,
detail of J.; Xiong,confinement
specimen Z. (reprinted from Ref. [75]).
•Order 2019of Cited Paper: [76]
•Highlights/Abstract:
2019 The study focused on the analysis of calcareous sand in
(V)
highSoil
Test strain rates
Material: (HSRs)—it
Calcareous sand exhibits different characteristics compared to othe
(V)
silica sand.
Authors: Lv, Y.;The phenomenon
Liu, J.; Xiong, Z. of high strain rates occurs in many events and
Order of Cited
e.g., dynamic Paper: [76]
Authors: Lv, Y.; driving of piles
Liu, J.; Xiong, Z. forming the pile foundation, mining and extracti
Highlights/Abstract: The study focused on the analysis of calcareous sand in the area of
ral resources
Order of Cited and utility loads caused by the movement of cars/airplanes/oth
high strain rates Paper:
(HSRs)—it [76]exhibits different characteristics compared to other soils, e.g.,
The sand.
silica experiment
Highlights/Abstract: used
The phenomenon Thethe of split
study high Hopkinson
focused
strain on the
rates occurs pressure
analysis
in many bar
ofeventsstand
calcareous in
sand theinimplement
and situations, the area of
e.g.,
high
dynamicstrain
calcareous rates
sand
driving (HSRs)—it
of reaction
piles forming exhibits different
testthecycle.
pile Soil characteristics
samples
foundation, mining placed
andcompared
in a steel
extraction toofother soils, e.g.,w
tube/casing
natural
silica sand.
resources andThe phenomenon
utility loads caused of high
by thestrain rates
movement occurs
after dynamic impact, and the results were compared to the known values ofof in many
cars/airplanes/other events and situations,
vehicles.
The experiment
e.g., dynamic used the of split Hopkinson pressure bar stand in the implementation ofof natu-
density
the
anddriving
calcareous
strain
sand
rate
reaction
piles
of
test
forming the
exemplary
cycle. Soil
pile
samples
foundation,
reactions and
placed in a
mining
dynamic
steel
and extraction
properties
tube/casing were
of othe
ral resources and utility loads caused by the movement of cars/airplanes/other vehicles.
e.g., silica
tested sand. In
after dynamic total,and 6 validation tests were performed
to the knowninvalues the bar–bar vers
The experiment usedimpact,
the split the results were
Hopkinson pressurecompared
bar stand in the implementation of the
of the
comparative
relative
calcareous sandtests
density and for test
strain
reaction thecycle.
rate ofdynamic
exemplaryproperties
reactions and
Soil samples placed ofdynamic
calcareous
in sandof(the
properties
a steel tube/casing
otherresults
were tested
loose soil, e.g., silica sand. In total, 6 validation tests were performed in the bar–bar
pared
after with
dynamic silica sand).
impact, andtests Different
theforresults particle
were compared sizes, their non-annual shapes and in
version and 16 comparative the dynamic properties to the knownsand
of calcareous values
(the of the relative
results
position
density
were and resulted
compared strain
with in
rate significantly
of
silica exemplary
sand). Different different
reactions
particleandresults
dynamic
sizes, of the
their dynamic
properties
non-annual reaction
of other
shapes looseofsoil,
and the
soil silica
e.g.,
internalsamples—the
sand. In total,
composition dynamic
resulted6 validationstiffness of calcareous
tests different
in significantly were results ofsand
performed in
thethe isbar–bar
dynamicabout 10 times
version
reaction of and low
16
comparative
the compared tests
soil for the
samples—the dynamic dynamicproperties
stiffness ofof calcareous
calcareous
dynamic stiffness of silica sand. Calcareous sand is porous in nature, and in sand
sand (the
is results
about 10 were
times com-
lower than
pared withthe dynamic
silica sand). stiffness
Different of silica sand.sizes,
particle Calcareous sand is porous
theirafter
non-annual in nature,
shapes and and in com-
a
experiment,
dynamic
the
experiment,
grains
the
werewere
grains
finally crushed
finally crushed after
the
the
plasticity
plasticity and
andinternal
hardening
hardening
position resulted in significantly different results of the dynamic reaction of the compared
ual
of grains in
individual theinsoil
grains the skeleton.
soil skeleton. TheThedestruction mechanics
destruction mechanics of a single
of a single calcareou
calcareous
soil samples—the dynamic stiffness of calcareous sand is about 10 times lower than the
ticleparticle
sand starts starts
with with
locallocalinstability
instabilityand extends
and extends until
until it fully
it fully
dynamic stiffness of silica sand. Calcareous sand is porous in nature, and in a dynamic
breaksbreaks the as
the particle particle
a as
result of an
an increasethe increase in
in grains the
the value value of the load effect. Schematic view of SHPB is shown in
experiment,
Figure 11. wereof the load
finally crushedeffect.
afterSchematic
the plasticity viewandof SHPB isofshown
hardening individ-in
ual grains in the soil skeleton. The destruction mechanics of a single calcareous sand par-
ticle starts with local instability and extends until it fully breaks the particle as a result of
an increase in the value of the load effect. Schematic view of SHPB is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Schematic view of SHPB test with a soil specimen (reprinted from Ref. [76]).
(VI)
Test
(VI)Soil Material: Calcareous and silica sand
Test Soil Material: Calcareous and silica sand
(VI)
Test Soil Material:
Authors: Lv, Y.; Calcareous
Wang, Y.;and
Zuo,silica
D. sand
Authors:
Order ofLv, Y.; Wang,
Cited Y.;[77]
Paper: Zuo, D.
aterials 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Materials 2022, 15, 274

Highlights/Abstract: The paper presents a research cycle using11 of the
29
split H
sure bar stand for porous, calcareous and solid silica sands analysis. Sam
grain sizes were used—fractions in four variants: 0.15—0.30 mm; 0.30—
Authors: Lv, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zuo, D.
1.18 mm; and 1.18—2.00 mm. In the study of quartz sand, it was observed
size has a significant
Highlights/Abstract: impact
The paper onathe
presents reaction
research of the
cycle using the sample subjected
split Hopkinson pres- to dy
the
sure phenomenon of particle
bar stand for porous, calcareouscrushing appears,
and solid silica mainly Samples
sands analysis. in the last
of dif-part of
ferent grain sizes were used—fractions in four variants: 0.15—0.30 mm; 0.30—0.60 mm;
ening process. Similar behavior also occurs in calcareous sand analysis;
0.60—1.18 mm; and 1.18—2.00 mm. In the study of quartz sand, it was observed that the
tinues throughout
particle size the loading
has a significant impact on process.
the reactionItofwas measured
the sample subjectedbytothe fractal dim
dynamic
impact—the
that phenomenon
the inherent of particle crushing
compliance trait in appears, mainly in the
the crushing last part of
process ofthe strain-
calcareous sa
hardening process. Similar behavior also occurs in calcareous sand analysis; however,
silica sandthroughout
it continues is approximately 1.2 times
the loading process. It was stronger.
measured byBoth experimental
the fractal dimension soil
behaviors
approach thatin theterms
inherentofcompliance
particle size—the larger process
trait in the crushing the particle size,sand
of calcareous the more
compared to silica sand is approximately 1.2 times stronger. Both experimental soils show
opposite process of changes in the void ratio and friction angle as a re
opposite behaviors in terms of particle size—the larger the particle size, the more noticeable
inter-particle voids
is the opposite process and mineral
of changes in the voidcomposition
ratio and friction in these
angle samples.
as a result Schemat
of different
inter-particle
test stand is voids
shownand mineral composition
in Figure 12. in these samples. Schematic view of SHPB
test stand is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Schematic view of SHPB test stand (reprinted from Ref. [77]).
Figure
(VII) 12. Schematic view of SHPB test stand (reprinted from Ref. [77]).
(VII)
Authors: Wen, S.; Zhang, C.; Chang, Y.; Hu, P.
OrderSoil
Test of Cited Paper: [78]Calcareous sand
Material:
Highlights/Abstract: An experiment was performed on a calcareous sand sample using
Authors: Wen, pressure
a split Hopkinson S.; Zhang, C.; Chang,
bar with a bar length Y.;ofHu,
100 P.
mm in order to analyze the
Order
mechanicalof Cited Paper:
properties for the[78]
dynamic impact case. In the study, the sample was closed
in a casing/tube, and thereAn
Highlights/Abstract: were different test conditions:
experiment was performedstrain rates
oninathe range of sand
calcareous
500—800 s−1 and pressure in the range of 0—200 MPa. An experiment was also carried
split
out to Hopkinson pressureproperties
determine the mechanical bar with a bar
in the length
static variant of 100
in the mm inuniversal
HUT106D order to anal
ical properties
testing for thesand
machine. Calcareous dynamic
was tested impact case. Insimilar
under generally the study, theassample
conditions in the wa
dynamic test—the differences were the strain rate of 2·10−3 s−1 and the pressure in the
ing/tube, and there were different test conditions: strain rates in the range
range of 0–120 MPa. Firstly, it was observed that after exceeding a certain limit value of the
and pressure
dynamic load, thein the range
influence of theof 0—200
initial pressureMPa.
on theAn experiment
dynamic mechanicalwas also carried
properties
of the
the calcareous sand
mechanical sample wasin
properties reduced.
the static Another conclusion
variant in the was the possibility
HUT106D of
universal
using the Tait equation of state to present the dependence of hydrostatic pressure–volume
Calcareous sand was
strain in the calcareous testedused
sand sample underfor thegenerally
experiment in similar conditions
both analyzed as in the
situations—
−3 −1
the differences
dynamic wereThe
and static study. the laststrain ratewas
observation 2 ∙statement
of the 10 s thatand the pressure
the strain rate effect in th
is well demonstrated by the volumetric compression degree of the
MPa. Firstly, it was observed that after exceeding a certain limit value of th analyzed calcareous
sand sample. Schematic view of the SHPB test system and calcareous sand specimen are
the
showninfluence of the initial pressure on the dynamic mechanical properti
in Figure 13.
ous sand sample was reduced. Another conclusion was the possibility
equation of state to present the dependence of hydrostatic pressure–volu
calcareous sand sample used for the experiment in both analyzed situa
and static study. The last observation was the statement that the strain r
Materials 2022, 15, 274 12 of 29
Figure 13. Schematic view of the SHPB test system and calcareous sand specimen (reprinted from
Figure
Ref. [78]).13. Schematic view of the SHPB test system and calcareous sand specimen
Ref. [78]).
(VIII)
Test
(VIII)Soil Material: Carbonate sand
Authors: Xiao, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Chu, J.; Liu, H.; Huang, J.; Luo, S.N.; Wang, S.; Lin, J.
Test Soil
Order Material:
of Cited Paper: [79]Carbonate sand
Authors: Xiao, Y.;The
Highlights/Abstract: Yuan,
paperZ.; Chu,tests
presents J.; Liu, H.; Huang,
on carbonate J.; Luo,
sand samples S.N.;
as part Wang, S.;
of com-
pression experiments:
Order of Cited Paper: [79] (a) with the use of the Materials Testing System for quasi-static
testing and (b) with the use of split Hopkinson pressure bar for dynamic testing. In order
to precisely define the particle Thesizepaper presents
distributions tests
(PSDs) on analyzed
in the carbonate sand sand
carbonate samples a
pression
samples experiments:
in the (a) with
pre-test and post-test the use
situations, of diffractometry
laser the Materials wasTesting
used. The System
results for qu
presented in the form of stress–strain curves prove that
ing and (b) with the use of split Hopkinson pressure bar for dynamic the carbonate sand used in the testin
experiment reveals the influence of the strain rate effect. On the basis of the stress–strain
precisely define the particle size distributions (PSDs) in the analyzed carbon
curves, a different course of the graph was also observed for the results obtained between
ples
the in the
tests: (a) ofpre-test andnature
a quasi-static post-test
and (b)situations,
of a dynamic laser
impactdiffractometry was used. T
character. The experiment
conducted under various conditions of the values of the
sented in the form of stress–strain curves prove that the carbonate occurring stresses and input energy
sand used
showed a different range of the phenomenon of particle fracture—it was determined in
iment reveals the influence of the strain rate effect. On the basis of the stress–
detail based on the PSD in the situation before the test and after the test. The phenomenon
a susceptibility
of different course of of
to breaking the
soilgraph
particleswas alsoinobserved
is greater for athe
the test (a) with resultsload
quasi-static obtained
than
tests: in (a)
the test
of (b) with a load resulting
a quasi-static nature fromanda dynamic
(b) of impact.
a dynamicFor the impact
identical value of
character. Th
the stress level, the breaking susceptibility of carbonate sand particles subjected to the test
conducted under various conditions of the values of the occurring stresses
(b) with a load of a dynamic impact is lower than in the test (a) with a quasi-static load than
ergy
in showed
the test. Anothera different
observationrange
was theof the phenomenon
conclusion of mechanism
that the fracture particle fracture—it
depends w
on the level of stress values—the mechanism takes the form of
in detail based on the PSD in the situation before the test and after the test.attrition and abrasion for
low stress values, but the mechanism for high stress values is fracture. General diagram of
enon of susceptibility to breaking of soil particles is greater in the test (a)
SHPB system is shown in Figure 14.
static load than in the test (b) with a load resulting from a dynamic impact
tical value of the stress level, the breaking susceptibility of carbonate sand
jected to the test (b) with a load of a dynamic impact is lower than in the
quasi-static load than in the test. Another observation was the conclusion th
mechanism depends on the level of stress values—the mechanism takes the
tion and abrasion for low stress values, but the mechanism for high stress
ture. General diagram of SHPB system is shown in Figure 14.
tical value of the stress level, the breaking susceptibility of carbonate sand particles sub
jected to the test (b) with a load of a dynamic impact is lower than in the test (a) with a
quasi-static load than in the test. Another observation was the conclusion that the fracture
mechanism depends on the level of stress values—the mechanism takes the form of attri
Materials 2022, 15, 274 tion and abrasion for low stress values, but the mechanism for high stress values
13 of 29 is frac
ture. General diagram of SHPB system is shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14. General diagram of SHPB system (reprinted from Ref. [79]).
(IX)
Test
FigureSoil Material:
14. General Frozen
diagram Siltysystem
of SHPB Clay (reprinted from Ref. [79]).
Authors: Ma, D.; Ma, Q.; Yao, Z.; Yuan, P.; Zhang, R.
(IX)
Test Soil Material: Frozen
Highlights/Abstract: The Silty Clay split Hopkinson pressure bar test stand allows you to
modified
analyze the dynamic behaviorYuan,
Authors: Ma, D.; Ma, Q.; Yao, Z.; P.; Zhang,
of a silty R.
clay sample in an additional test module—artifi-
cial frozen sample. The dynamic hitting of a bar allows one to obtain the stress–strain
Highlights/Abstract: The modified split Hopkinson pressure bar test stand allows you to
dependency graph. The experiment enables the determination of several dynamic soil pa-
analyze the dynamic behavior of a silty clay sample in an additional test module—artificial
rameters:
frozen sample.dynamic compressive
The dynamic hittingstrength, dynamic
of a bar allows one deformation modulus, energy
to obtain the stress–strain depen-dissipa-
tion and failure mode in the prepared sample, taking into account
dency graph. The experiment enables the determination of several dynamic soil parameters: the axial precompres-
sive stress
dynamic ratio. During
compressive the study,
strength, the possibility
dynamic deformation ofmodulus,
dividingenergy
the stress–strain
dissipationdependency
and
graph
failure obtained
mode in the in prepared
uniaxial and one-dimensional
sample, taking into accountdynamic impact
the axial conditions into
precompressive stressfour seg-
ratio. During
ments the study,(a)
was observed: thecompaction
possibility ofpart,dividing the stress–strain
(b) elastic dependency
part, (c) plastic part and graph(d) failure
obtained in uniaxial and one-dimensional dynamic impact conditions
part. There was a noticeable trend of increasing values and successively decreasing them into four segments
was
as theobserved: (a) compaction
axial compressive stress part, (b)grows—the
ratio elastic part, process
(c) plastictakes
part place
and (d) forfailure
selected part.
dynamic
There was a noticeable trend of increasing values and successively decreasing them as
parameters (e.g., dynamic compressive strength, deformation modulus for (a) compaction
the axial compressive stress ratio grows—the process takes place for selected dynamic
part, deformation
parameters modulus
(e.g., dynamic for (b) part
compressive elastic
strength, and absorbed
deformation modulus energy
for (a)density
compaction of the ana-
lyzed soil sample). For the axial compressive stress ratio with
part, deformation modulus for (b) part elastic and absorbed energy density of the ana- a value of 0.4, there is an
observation that signs
lyzed soil sample). For the of axial
the spall phenomenon
compressive are visible
stress ratio around
with a value thethere
of 0.4, circumference
is an of
the sample,that
observation while
signsin of
thethe
central area of the sample,
spall phenomenon there
are visible is nothe
around disturbance
circumference to the soil struc-
of the
sample,
ture. while
Only forinthe
theaxial
central area of the sample,
compressive stress there
ratio iswith
no disturbance
a value from to the0.7soil
to structure.
0.9 are the signs
Only
of thefor the failure
shear axial compressive stress There
process visible. ratio with
is a adependence
value from 0.7 thattothe
0.9 higher
are the thesigns of of the
value
the shear failure process visible. There is a dependence that the higher
axial compressive stress ratio, the stronger the result of the destruction process on the the value of the
axial compressive stress ratio, the stronger the result of the destruction process on the
shear surface—for an axial compressive stress ratio of 1.0, the crush failure variant follows
shear surface—for an axial compressive stress ratio of 1.0, the crush failure variant follows.
Modified
Modified SHPB SHPBtest test stand
stand is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure 15. 15.
Figure 15. Modified SHPB test stand with frozen soil specimen - silty clay (reprinted from Ref. [80]).
Figure 15. Modified SHPB test stand with frozen soil specimen - silty clay (reprinted from Ref. [80])
• 2020
(X)
Materials 2022, 15, 274 14 of 29
• 2020
(X)
Test Soil Material: Volcanic sand
Authors: Varley, L.; Rutherford, M.E.; Zhang, L.; Pellegrino, A.
Highlights/Abstract: Based on the split Hopkinson pressure bar test stand in the variant
with an elongated bar, the soil was analyzed on the example of volcanic sand from Mount
Etna in order to test the dependence of sample water moisture and the initial compaction
coefficient to maintain dynamic soil subjected to a load by a projectile impact. The result
of the experiment was the determination of, e.g., a graph of the dynamic dependence of
parameters ultimately
stress–strains were used for the
ending tests—samples
with with
a significant value of different
compressive percentages
strains. Oneof ofwater m
andassumptions
the the initialofporosity index.was
the experiment Astopart of the
reflect thenatural
analysis, a significant
conditions of Mount influence
Etna as of wa
pending
much on the
as possible amount
in the researchofroom.
its presence in the
Volcanic sand sample)
samples on the characteristic
with different dynamic behavio
parameters
sample subjected to a dynamic impact with a bar was observed. Themoisture
were used for the tests—samples with different percentages of water volcanic sand
and the initial porosity index. As part of the analysis, a significant influence of water
with low water content in the soil pores behaved similarly to the sample in dry con
(depending on the amount of its presence in the sample) on the dynamic behavior of
It could
the samplebe observed
subjected to a that a sample
dynamic impact with
with aabarhighwaspercentage
observed. The of volcanic
water in the pores
sand
saturated
sample withsample)
low waterhas a significant
content in the soildynamic
pores behavedreaction—water
similarly to thebehaves
sample inlike
dryan inco
conditions.
ible material It could
at thebemoment
observed of thatdynamic
a sample impact,
with a highandpercentage
there is aofvisible
water in the
increase in
pores (water-saturated sample) has a significant dynamic reaction—water behaves like an
ness phenomenon at the strain of volcanic sand sample. When the sample is loade
incompressible material at the moment of dynamic impact, and there is a visible increase
quasi-static
in the stiffnessvariant
phenomenonon a atuniversal
the strainmachine
of volcanic atsand
a low strainWhen
sample. rate, the
no sample
significant
is influ
the water
loaded in thecontent in the
quasi-static sample
variant on its behavior
on a universal machine atisa lowobserved. Additionally,
strain rate, no significant an edg
tion study was performed for the determination and comparative analysis
influence of the water content in the sample on its behavior is observed. Additionally, an of th
edge detection study was performed for the determination and
fraction of the volcanic sand samples used in the experiment. Split Hopkinson comparative analysis of p
the grain fraction of the volcanic sand samples used in the experiment. Split Hopkinson
bar system is shown in Figure 16.
pressure bar system is shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16. Split Hopkinson pressure bar system with soil specimen (reprinted from Ref. [81]).
Figure 16. Split Hopkinson pressure bar system with soil specimen (reprinted from Ref. [8
(XI)
(XI)Soil Material: Coral sand
Test
Test Soil Material: Coral sand
Authors: Dong, K.; Ren, H.; Ruan, W.; Ning, H.; Guo, R.; Huang, K.
Materials 2022, 15, 274 15 of 29
Authors: Dong, K.; Ren, H.; Ruan, W.; Ning, H.; Guo, R.; Huang, K.
Highlights/Abstract: The split Hopkinson pressure bar test stand with a measuring bar
diameter of 37 mm was used for experiments with two different coral sand samples in
order to determine the strain rate dependence under dynamic loading of soil samples.
One-dimensional stress–strain plots in various ranges of the strain rate 460 to 1300 s−1 were
determined as a result. The analysis also used the results obtained from the static machine
for the strain rate 10−4 s−1 two types of coral sand showed different dynamic and static
reactions during the experiment. As a conclusion, it was proposed that the susceptibility
of a given type of coral sand to the strain rate is significantly dependent and related to
the internal structure of grains, soil pores and the phenomenon of inter-particle friction.
Additionally, proposed models supporting dynamic numerical calculations of coral sand
Materials 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15
samples as a result of dynamic impact were presented. SHPB experiment section for coral
sand specimen is shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17. SHPB experiment section for coral sand specimen (reprinted from Ref. [82]).
(XII)
Authors: Zhao, Z.; Qiu, Y.; Zi, M.; Xing, H.; Wang, M.
Figure 17. SHPB experiment section for coral sand specimen (reprinted from Ref. [82]).
Order
Figure of SHPB
17. Citedexperiment
Paper: [83]section for coral sand specimen (reprinted from Ref. [82]).
Highlights/Abstract: As part of the experiment, the split Hopkinson pressure
(XII)
stand
Test Soilwas
(XII) usedCalcareous
Material: to determine sand the effect of different levels of water content in cal
sand
Test
Authors:samples
Soil Z.;under
Material:
Zhao, Y.;the
Calcareous
Qiu, conditions
Zi, M.; sandH.; Wang,
Xing, of one-dimensional
M. state. During the resea
−1
strain rates
Order
Authors:of Cited were
Zhao, Z.;obtained
Paper: [83]
Qiu, Y.; Zi, in M.;
theXing,
rangeH.; ofWang,
209—1137 M. s . During the experiment
observed
Order that the
of Cited As part of
correctness
Paper: [83] the experiment, the split Hopkinson
of the results significantly depends pressure bar ontest
thestand
observanc
was used to determine the effect of different levels of water content in calcareous sand
axial condition
Highlights/Abstract: of the measuring
As part of the bars and
experiment,the performance of
the split Hopkinson
samples under the conditions of one-dimensional state. During the research, the strain rates
the calibration
pressureproce bar
stand
were was used
the characteristic
obtained in thetorange
determine
parameters the
of 209—1137 effect
(e.g., of different
s−1sensitivity
. During levels ofitwater
the coefficient)
experiment, of
wasthe content
set ofthat
observed in calcare
measurin
sand
gauges samples
located
the correctness ofunder
the thethe
onresults conditions
measuring
significantly of one-dimensional
bars.
depends In the study,
on the state.
of theDuring
calcareous
observance sand
axial the research,
samples
condition in th
−1
strain
of the rates
measuring werebars obtained
and the in the
performance rangeof of
the 209—1137
calibration
unsaturation variant (low water moisture in the sample) were analyzed in detai s .
procedure During
of the the experiment,
characteristic it
parameters
observed (e.g., sensitivity coefficient) of the set of measuring strain gauges located on the
proposal that of a the correctness
dynamic behavior of the results
model was significantly
presenteddepends as a result onofthetheobservance
stress–strai of
measuring bars. In the study, calcareous sand samples in the water unsaturation variant
axial conditionimpact
analysis. of the measuring bars andvalue the performance of thetangential
calibrationmodulusprocedur
(low water The
moisture in the ofsample)
the limit werestrain of 0.025
analyzed in detail, and on the
a proposal of a dynamic
the characteristic
served
behaviorin the tested
model
parameters
soil type—the
was presented
(e.g., sensitivity
as a result tangential
coefficient)
modulus
of the stress–strain curvevalue
of the
was
analysis.
set of
lower
The
measuring
impact forofthe dry
st
gauges
than forlocated
the limit the wet
strain onsample
value the measuring
of 0.025 for
on thestrainbars. In the
<0.025,
tangential study,
and
modulus the
wascalcareous
observed sand
tangential the samples
inmodulus soilin the
tested value wasw
unsaturation
type—the
for the dry variant
tangential
sample (lowfor
modulus
than water
valuethewas moisture
wet lower
sampleforin the
the dry
for sample)
sample
strain were
than
>0.025. analyzed
forSchematic
the wet samplein
viewdetail, an
of SH
for strain <0.025, and the tangential modulus value was greater for
proposal of a dynamic behavior model was presented as a result of the stress–strain cu the dry sample than for
stand is shown
the wet sample
in Figure 18.Schematic view of SHPB test stand is shown in Figure 18.
analysis. The for strainof
impact >0.025.
the limit strain value of 0.025 on the tangential modulus was
served in the tested soil type—the tangential modulus value was lower for the dry sam
than for the wet sample for strain <0.025, and the tangential modulus value was gre
for the dry sample than for the wet sample for strain >0.025. Schematic view of SHPB
stand is shown in Figure 18.
(XIII)
Materials 2022, 15, 274 16 of 29
(XIII)
Authors: Lv, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.
Highlights/Abstract: When conducting experiments using the Hopkinson technique at
high strain rates, the phenomenon of dividing into smaller parts of angular and porous soil
grains takes place—in this study, calcareous sand was analyzed. In addition to observing
this process, it is also worth quantifying how many grains it concerns. A series of tests
were performed and analyzed using the split Hopkinson pressure bar test stand to discuss
how various variable conditions in the test (impact energies, relative densities, water
moisture
sis of thecontent and particle
stress–strain gradations)
curve affect the
of the tested phenomenon
soil sample inofan calcareous sand grain
almost linear form. The
breakage. It was observed that the process of grinding and reordering the soil grain
eter relating to the particle breakage depends in an exponential way on the valu
structure continues during the entire dynamic loading process—it results from the analysis
impact
of energy of
the stress–strain theofbar
curve the projectile. In theinbeginning,
tested soil sample forform.
an almost linear a soilThesample with a low
parameter
content,
relating to athe
decrease in the particle
particle breakage dependsbreakage phenomenon
in an exponential way on the isvalue
observed; a further inc
of the impact
energy of the bar projectile. In the beginning, for a soil sample with a low
the soil moisture level causes an increase in the occurrence of particle breakage du water content,
a decrease in the particle breakage phenomenon is observed; a further increase in the
observation. The result of the study is also the conclusion that (a) for calcareous sa
soil moisture level causes an increase in the occurrence of particle breakage during the
ples when saturated
observation. The result ofwith water,is larger-diameter
the study also the conclusionparticles
that (a) forare damaged
calcareous more, an
sand
with small
samples whendiameter are less
saturated with damaged,
water, and (b)
larger-diameter for calcareous
particles are damagedsand more,samples
and thosewith lo
with small diameter
saturation or dry,are less damaged,
particles with and (b) fordiameter
a small calcareousare
sand samples
more with lowin
damaged water
the proces
saturation or dry, particles with a small diameter are more damaged
those of a larger diameter are less damaged. SHPB test system with sand spec in the process, while
those of a larger diameter are less damaged. SHPB test system with sand specimen is
shown in Figure 19.
shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19. SHPB test system with sand specimen (reprinted from Ref. [84]).
Figure 19. SHPB test system with sand specimen (reprinted from Ref. [84]).
(XIV)
(XIV)
Test Soil Material: Frozen soil
Test SoilZhang,
Authors: Material: Frozen
F.; Zhu, Z.; Fu,soil
T.; Jia, J.
Authors: Zhang, F.; Zhu, Z.; Fu, T.; Jia, J.
Highlights/Abstract: The paper deals with the subject of dynamic mechanical properties
as a result of tests using the split Hopkinson pressure bar test stand under HSR conditions
for an experiment with a soil Thesample
paperindeals withofthe
the variant subjecttemperature
a reduced of dynamic mechanical
(frozen soil). pr
as a result of tests using the split Hopkinson pressure bar test stand
The study focused on the process of changing the wave impedance value for the case of a under HSR con
for ansoil
frozen experiment with a soilwas
sample. A concordance sample in the
observed variant
between of a reduced
the viscoelastic theorytemperature
record and (froz
the wave impedance increase experiment when the sample was
The study focused on the process of changing the wave impedance value prepared by freezing. Thefor the c
indicated phenomenon results from the relaxation of water that has not been completely
frozen soil sample. A concordance was observed between the viscoelastic theory
frozen—it results in an increase in the maximum stress values as a result of a dynamic bar
and the
impact onwave impedance
a frozen soil sample.increase
The workexperiment when
used the effective the sample
medium theory by was prepared
taking into by f
The indicated phenomenon results from the relaxation of water that has not bee
pletely frozen—it results in an increase in the maximum stress values as a result
namic bar impact on a frozen soil sample. The work used the effective medium th
taking into account the macroscopic parameter (velocity of the propagated wave)
Materials 2022, 15, 274 17 of 29
account the macroscopic parameter (velocity of the propagated wave) and the mesoscopic
parameter (random or vertical microcrack mesh density), assuming the variable damage as
the longitudinal wave propagation speed. The Zhu–Wang–Tang model was included in the
dynamic analysis, which, for the Maxwell element (in the form of low-frequency parameters)
in the assumed conditions of a frozen soil sample, did not finally fulfill the properties of a
simple spring—this correlates with the observed macroscopic properties of the soil sample in
the freezing variant. The result of the work was the development of a dynamic constitutive
model for the analyzed soil type in the frozen sample variant (empirical and experimental
results are comparable). Split Hopkinson pressure bar system is shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20. Split Hopkinson pressure bar system (reprinted from Ref. [85]).
Figure 20. Split Hopkinson pressure bar system (reprinted from Ref. [85]).
• 2021
•
(XV) 2021
Test Soil Material: Silty sand
(XV) Chmielewski, R.; Kruszka, L.; Rekucki, R.; Sobczyk, K.
Authors:
Order of Cited
Test Soil Paper: [71]
Material: Silty sand
Highlights/Abstract: Silty sand was subjected to a dynamic impact bar on a split Hopkinson
Authors: Chmielewski, R.; Kruszka, L.; Rekucki, R.; Sobczyk, K.
pressure bar test stand. The aim of the experiment was to obtain the dependence graphs
Order
of of Cited
stress–stain Paper:
curves and [71]
strength dynamic parameters under changing conditions: (a)
different strain rate valuesSilty sand
and (b) was subjected
different values of waterto amoisture
dynamic impact
in the sample. barInon
thea split H
study, the possibility of sideways deformation of the sample was
son pressure bar test stand. The aim of the experiment was to obtain the depe limited by sufficiently high
tube/casing stiffness, obtaining oedometric conditions. A sieve analysis of the soil sample
graphs of stress–stain curves and strength dynamic parameters under changing
was performed, and the percentage content of individual fractions was determined—the
tions: percentage
largest (a) different strain
is the rate values
fine fraction. The useand of (b)
the different values
analyzed silty sand of water
sample in moisture
a rigid in t
ple. In the study, the possibility of sideways deformation
casing/tube made of duralumin material allows the assumption of uniaxial deformation of the sample was lim
sufficiently
conditions high
in the tube/casing
experiment. stiffness,
The digital obtainingwas
data recording oedometric
transferred to conditions.
the computer A sieve a
through the use of a set of strain gauges on each of the two bars
of the soil sample was performed, and the percentage content of individual fractithat were elements of the
test stand (initiating bar and transmitting bar). An additional set of strain gauges was also
determined—the largest percentage is the fine fraction. The use of the analyzed si
glued onto the rigid casing/tube for peripheral results. During the experiment, the nature
sample
and valuesinofa the
rigid casing/tube
curves made
of three types of of duralumin
waves material allows the
were determined—incident, assumption
reflected
axial
and deformation
transmitted waves conditions
created as ain the of
result experiment. The digital
a dynamic impact data
with a bar. recording
Soil samples ofwas tran
dominant sandy fractions
to the computer through and silts
the showed
use of adifferent densitygauges
set of strain values inon theeach
standard optimal
of the two bars th
humidity test (Proctor test) than in the case of dynamic compaction under HSR (high strain
elements of the test stand (initiating bar and transmitting bar). An additional set o
rate) conditions. The cause of the phenomenon is a change in the type of soil particles
gauges the
through was also glued
fracture onto of
mechanism thetherigid casing/tube
soil structure for peripheral
as a result results.
of a large increase in During
the th
iment, energy
damage the naturebalanceandfromvalues of the
bar impact. curves
A unique of three
element of thetypes of waves
work was were determ
that it carried
out and showed the results through a particle size distribution test
incident, reflected and transmitted waves created as a result of a dynamic impac curve for two different
types of silty
bar. Soil sand samples.
samples of dominantDetailed view with
sandy the sample
fractions in contact
and silts showed withdifferent
the fronts density
of v
both measuring bars is shown in Figure 21.
the standard optimal humidity test (Proctor test) than in the case of dynamic com
under HSR (high strain rate) conditions. The cause of the phenomenon is a chang
type of soil particles through the fracture mechanism of the soil structure as a res
large increase in the damage energy balance from bar impact. A unique elemen
work was that it carried out and showed the results through a particle size distr
test curve for two different types of silty sand samples. Detailed view with the sa
contact with the fronts of both measuring bars is shown in Figure 21.
Materials 2022, 15, 274 18 of 29
Figure 21. Detailed view with the sample in contact with the fronts of both measuring bars
(XVI)
Figure 21. Detailed view with the sample in contact with the fronts of both measuring bars (reprinted
Test
Figure
from Soil
21.
Ref. Material:
Detailed view
[71]). Frozen
with soil
the sample in contact with the fronts of both measuring bars (re-
printed from
Authors: Zhu,Ref. Z.;
[71]).
Fu, T.; Zhou, Z.; Cao, C.
(XVI) of Cited Paper: [86]
Order
(XVI)
Test Soil Material: FrozenAn soilimportant area in the construction industry is the influenc
Test Soil Material:
Authors: Zhu, (e.g., Frozen
Z.; Fu,the soilZ.; Cao, C.
T.; Zhou,
temperature situation between summer and winter) on dynamic reactions res
Authors: Zhu, Z.;
Order of Cited Paper: [86]Fu, T.; Zhou, Z.; Cao, C.
ing
Orderfrom the influence
of Cited Paper:An of dynamic load. The study analyzed the dynamic mechan
[86]important
Highlights/Abstract: area in the construction industry is the influence
properties
of temperature of the
Highlights/Abstract: soil
(e.g., An
thesample
situationin between
important the freezing
area the variant—soil
insummerconstruction
and winter) samples
industry
on dynamic iswith a water conten
thereactions
influence of
20% andfrom
temperature
resulting freezing
(e.g., temperatures
the
the influencesituation of different
between
of dynamic summer
load. values were on
and analyzed
The study winter) tested
thedynamicon a reactions
dynamic split Hopkinson
mechanicalresult- p
sure bar test
properties
ing from the stand,
of the where
soil sample
influence thethe
in
of dynamic soil was
load.impacted
freezing studyby
variant—soil
The asamples
dynamic
analyzed with
the bar projectile.
a water
dynamic content The rese
mechanical
of
on 20% and
the dynamic
properties freezing temperatures
reaction
of the soil sample focused of different values
on twovariant—soil
in the freezing were tested
areas: (a) increase
samplesinon a
with split Hopkinson
theatemperature
water contentof of the
pressure
20% and bar test
freezing stand, where
temperatures the
of soil was
different impacted
values by
were a dynamic
tested
sample and (b) mechanism of the failure process. During the development of the exp on abar projectile.
split Hopkinson The pres-
research
sure bar on
testthe dynamic
stand, where reaction
themodelfocused
soil was on two areas:
impacted (a) increase
by a dynamic inprojectile.
the temperature of
ment results, the Ottosen was used, including thebarassumptions The
andresearch
condition
the soil sample
on the dynamic and (b)
reaction mechanism
focused on of the failure process.
two areas: (a)the During
increase the development
in the temperature of the
of thedetermin
soil
thermal
experiment activation thetheory,
Ottosen and consequently, rate damage equation was
sample andresults,(b) mechanism ofmodel was used, including
the failure process. During the assumptions
the development and conditions
of the experi-
The final conclusion
of thermal activation theory, was andthe consequently,
recommendation the ratethat an improved
damage equation was non-linear
determined.mode sho
ment results, the Ottosen model was used, including the assumptions and conditions of
be
Theused
final for the dynamic
conclusion was theand mechanical analysis
recommendation of soil. General
that an improved non-linear view
modeof should
SHPB test sys
thermal activation theory, and consequently, the rate damage equation was determined.
be shown
is used forin theFigure
dynamic 22.and mechanical analysis of soil. General view of SHPB test system
The final conclusion was the recommendation that an improved non-linear mode should
is shown in Figure 22.
be used for the dynamic and mechanical analysis of soil. General view of SHPB test system
is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22. General view of SHPB test system (reprinted from Ref. [86]).
(XVII)
(XVII)
Test Soil Material: Sandy soil
Test SoilLi,
Authors:
(XVII) Material:
T.; Li, G.;Sandy soil
Ding, Y.; Kong, T.; Liu, J.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, N.
Order of
Authors: Cited Paper: [87]
Test Soil Material: Sandy soil Y.; Kong, T.; Liu, J.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, N.
Li, T.; Li, G.; Ding,
Order of Li,
Cited The[87]
Paper: paper analyzes sandy soil samples—it is a type of soil that often
Authors: T.; Li, G.; Ding, Y.; Kong, T.; Liu, J.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, N.
occurs in nature as a type of geotechnical material. Based on the tests on the SHPB test
Order of Cited Paper: [87] The paper analyzes sandy soil samples—it is a type of soil that o
stand, the variable test conditions were analyzed, such as soil sample moisture and soil
occurs The paper
of analyzes sandymaterial.
soil samples—it
Based isona type of soilonthat often
sample compaction valuetype
in nature as a on the geotechnical
response of dynamic mechanical the tests
properties the
as a result SHPB
occurs
stand,
of in nature
the
the dynamicvariableas aof
load type
test of geotechnical
theconditions
bar were
projectile. material.
analyzed,
It was Based
observedsuchonas
that the
dry tests
soil
or on themoisture
sample
low-water SHPB
sandy testand
stand, the variable test conditions were analyzed, such as soil
sample compaction value on the response of dynamic mechanical properties sample moisture andassoil
a resu
sample compaction value on the response of dynamic mechanical properties
the dynamic load of the bar projectile. It was observed that dry or low-water sandy as a result of
the dynamic load of the bar projectile. It was observed that dry or low-water sandy soil
Materials 2022, 15, 274 samples for the strain rate values between 500 and 2200 s−1 were characterized 19 of 29 by a
crease in the dynamic reaction. The dynamic response can be enhanced by changing
sample conditions—higher water content in the soil (sample hydration) and a highe
soil samples for the strain rate values between 500 and 2200 s−1 were characterized by an
gree of compaction (additionally densifying the sample). It was shown that the resul
increase in the dynamic reaction. The dynamic response can be enhanced by changing
thesample
the experiment for the soil with
conditions—higher watercomparable
content in thevalues of thehydration)
soil (sample compaction anddegree
a higherof 97.5%
100% had no significant differences; only significant deviations
degree of compaction (additionally densifying the sample). It was shown that the results in the results were
served
of when comparing
the experiment for the soil these values with
with comparable 95%.
values of It
thewas also observed
compaction degree ofthat
97.5%the degre
and 100% had no significant differences; only significant deviations
humidity at the level of 15% causes an increase of about two times the dynamic mech in the results were
observed when comparing
cal properties in comparisonthese values
with with 95%.samples
the soil It was also observed
with that thecontent.
low water degree ofAnother
humidity at the level of 15% causes an increase of about two times the dynamic mechanical
portant factor is the type of the sleeve material—the sandy soil sample shows a diffe
properties in comparison with the soil samples with low water content. Another important
response
factor is theto theofdynamic
type the sleeve impact of thesandy
material—the bar projectile
soil samplebetween the situation
shows a different response with the
sleeve
to and the
the dynamic aluminum
impact of the barsleeve. The
projectile phenomenon
between is awith
the situation result of the
the steel conditions
sleeve and for
triaxial
the stresssleeve.
aluminum state The
andphenomenon
the level ofisthe Poisson’s
a result ratio value—assuming
of the conditions the same s
for the triaxial stress
state
rate and the the
value, levelsandy
of the Poisson’s
soil sampleratioin
value—assuming
the steel sleevethe same
will strain
show rate value,
fewer dynamicthe prope
sandy
than thesoil sample
sandy in thesample
soil steel sleeve willaluminum
in the show fewersleeve.
dynamicSchematic
properties than
viewthe ofsandy
SHPB test s
soil sample in the aluminum sleeve. Schematic view of SHPB test stand and a specimen are
and a specimen are shown in Figure 23.
shown in Figure 23.
Figure 23. Schematic view of SHPB test stand and a specimen (reprinted from Ref. [87]).
Figure 23. Schematic view of SHPB test stand and a specimen (reprinted from Ref. [87]).
(XVIII)
(XVIII)
Test SoilLi,Material:
Authors: Frozen
B.; Zhu, Z.; Ning, soil
J.; Li, T.; Zhou, Z.
Authors:
Order Li, B.;
of Cited Zhu,
Paper: [88]Z.; Ning, J.; Li, T.; Zhou, Z.
Order of Cited Paper:
Highlights/Abstract: [88] focuses on the analysis of the effect of the complex freezing–
The paper
thawing process for the values
Highlights/Abstract: The paper of dynamic
focuses mechanical
on the properties
analysis of of soil
the samples
effect ofsubjected
the complex fr
to dynamic loading from a bar projectile/striker impact. The experiment used a split
ing–thawing process for the values of dynamic mechanical properties of soil samples
Hopkinson pressure bar test stand with a soil sample and a variable in the form of the
jected to dynamic loading from a bar projectile/striker impact. The experiment used a
number of freeze–thaw cycles performed and different temperature levels of these cycles.
AHopkinson pressureofbar
significant influence test stand
the number with a soil
of performed sample and acomplex
freezing–thawing variable in the form o
processes
number
on of freeze–thaw
the dynamic reaction ofcycles
the soilperformed
sample wasand different
observed. The temperature levelswere
following results of these cy
observed on the basis of the test cycle: (a) the greater the number
A significant influence of the number of performed freezing–thawing complex of freeze–thaw cycles, the proce
lower the maximum stress values in the soil sample; (b) the limit number
on the dynamic reaction of the soil sample was observed. The following results were of freeze–thaw
cycles for a balanced state of stress values in the sample is in range from 3 to 7; and (c) the
served on the basis of the test cycle: (a) the greater the number of freeze–thaw cycles
lower the sample temperature in the freeze–thaw cycle, the lower the maximum stress
lower achieved.
values the maximum stress
The study values in
combined thethe soil sample;
discretized (b) the limitmodel
Zhu–Wang–Tang numberand ofthefreeze–t
theory of plasticity according to the condition of the plastic Drucker–Prager criterion. As7; and (c
cycles for a balanced state of stress values in the sample is in range from 3 to
alower
result the sample
of this temperature
integration, in the
a constitutive freeze–thaw
model cycle,taking
was developed the lower the maximum
into account the s
viscoelastic-plastic character area of the soil model dynamically
values achieved. The study combined the discretized Zhu–Wang–Tang model and loaded with a bar impact in
the rangeofofplasticity
theory variable temperature
accordingconditions of the freeze–thaw
to the condition cycle Drucker–Prager
of the plastic process. Finally, thecriterion
results of the SHPB test were confirmed with the constitutive model developed. Research
a result of this integration, a constitutive model was developed taking into accoun
procedure of the conducted SHPB experiment is shown in Figure 24.
viscoelastic-plastic character area of the soil model dynamically loaded with a bar im
in the range of variable temperature conditions of the freeze–thaw cycle process. Fin
the results of the SHPB test were confirmed with the constitutive model developed
search procedure of the conducted SHPB experiment is shown in Figure 24.
Materials 2022, 15, 274 20 of 29
Figure 24. Research procedure of the conducted SHPB experiment (reprinted from Ref.
(XIX)
Authors: Jia, J.; Tang, H.; Chen, H.
Figure
Figure24. 24.Research
Research
Highlights/Abstract: procedure
procedure of the
The conducted
ofpaper
the conducted SHPBSHPB
presents experiment
theexperiment (reprinted
results of from Ref.from
(reprinted
the [88]).Ref. [88]).
experiment carried
basis of the split Hopkinson pressure bar test stand for various strain rates with
(XIX)
(XIX)
a soil
Test sample inFrozen a variable temperature variant—the sample was frozen. The r
TestSoilSoilMaterial:
Material: Frozen soil
soil
research
Authors:
Authors: Jia, is aJ.;graphical
Jia, J.; Tang, H.; Chen,
Tang, H.; Chen, plot of
H.
H.the strees–strain variability in the analyzed soil
namically
Order of Cited loadedPaper: with
[89] bar projectile. It was observed that during the test of a
Highlights/Abstract: The paper presents the results of the experiment carried out on
samplebasis with
of the asplit
the dynamicThe paper
Hopkinson loadpressure
causedbar
presents bytest
the aresults
bar
stand impact,
offorthevariousthe shear
experiment fracture
strain carried
rates outpheno
with on the
pears
the use near
basis of the
of a soilthesample
split elasticin alimit.
Hopkinson Astemperature
pressure
variable a result, the
bar test stand ability of
for
variant—the various water
sample strain
wastofrozen.
maintain
rates withThe bearin
the use o
a soil
result
(in sample
of
frozen in a variable
the form—ice)
research intemperature
is a graphical
the pores plot ofofvariant—the
thethe soil issample
strees–strain was frozen.
variability
significantly in lost. The
Theresult
the analyzed roleofofthe
s
soil sample
research is dynamically
a graphical loaded
plot of with
the bar projectile.variability
strees–strain It was observed in the that during soil
analyzed the test
sample dy
mission
of
is mainly
a frozen soil sample
performed
with
by the soil skeleton. Inimpact,
addition, it was established
namically loaded with baraprojectile.
dynamic load It wascaused
observedby a bar that during thethe
shear
testfracture
of a frozen soi
is a visible relationship
phenomenon between the strain ratethe values
ability and the to levels of freezin
sample withappears a dynamic near the
loadelastic
caused limit.
by aAs bara result,
impact, the shear of water
fracture maintain
phenomenon ap
ture
bearing used for
capacity the
(in experiment,
frozen form—ice) affecting
in the pores the of results
the soil
pears near the elastic limit. As a result, the ability of water to maintain bearing capacity
of
is the study
significantly in
lost. the
The form o
role of
mechanical stress transmission
properties is mainly
inpores performed
soil samples. by the soil
It significantlyskeleton.
was observed In addition,
that (a) soilit wasparamet
(in frozen that
established form—ice)
there is ainvisible
the of the between
relationship soil is the strain ratelost. valuesTheand roletheoflevels
stress trans
modulus,
mission is elastic
mainly modulus
performed and
by thestrength
soil increase
skeleton. In their
addition,
of freezing temperature used for the experiment, affecting the results of the study in the values
it was for the
established case of
that an
there
the
form loading
is a visible
of dynamic strain
relationship rate
mechanical value;
between (b)strain
the
properties soil
in parameters
soilrate values Itand
samples. secant
was the levels
observedmodulus,
ofthat (a) elastic
freezing mo
soiltempera
ture used
parameters’ for
secantthe experiment,
modulus, elastic affecting
modulus the
and results
strength
strength increase their values when the freezing temperature of a soil sample of the
increase study
their in the
values form
for the of
case dynamic
of an increase properties
and (c) as ainresult
mechanical the loading
of in strain rate value;
soil samples.
a dynamic impactIt (b)
was soilobserved
of aparameters
bar projectile thatsecant
(a) onmodulus,
soilthe elastic secan
parameters’
sample: strain
modulus and strength increase their values when the freezing
modulus, elastic modulus and strength increase their values for the case of an increase in temperature of a soil sample
sample,
is lowered;damageand (c) aspropagation
a result of a dynamic and the process of a barof phase on transformation of melti
the loading strain rate value; (b) soil impact parameters projectile
secant modulus, the sample: strain
elastic modulus and
into
of thewater by providing
soil sample, additional
damage propagation energy.
and the processGeneral view of SHPB
of phase transformation system is sho
of melting
strength increase their values when the freezing temperature of a soil sample is lowered
from
ure ice into water by providing additional energy. General view of SHPB system is shown
and 25.(c) as a result of a dynamic impact of a bar projectile on the sample: strain of the soi
in Figure 25.
sample, damage propagation and the process of phase transformation of melting from ice
into water by providing additional energy. General view of SHPB system is shown in Fig
ure 25.
Figure 25. General view of SHPB system (reprinted from Ref. [89]).
Figure 25. General view of SHPB system (reprinted from Ref. [89]).
5. Discussion
5. This
25.paper
Discussion
Figure focuses
General viewmainly onsystem
of SHPB tests with measuring
(reprinted frombars
Ref. in the compression module.
[89]).
However, this method does not allow us to find out the full characteristics of the tested
This paper focuses mainly on tests with measuring bars in the compressio
5. Discussion
However, this method does not allow us to find out the full characteristics o
This paper focuses mainly on tests with measuring bars in the compression module
sample. In tests using the Hopkinson technique, various modules of the Hop
However, this method does not allow us to find out the full characteristics of the tested
can be used
sample. to determine
In tests the dynamic
using the Hopkinson mechanical
technique, variousproperties
modules ofofthe
the tested soil
Hopkinson bas
Materials 2022, 15, 274 21 of 29
sample. In tests using the Hopkinson technique, various modules of the Hopkinson bar
can be used to determine the dynamic mechanical properties of the tested soil samples (or
other samples, e.g., steel, concrete, ceramics)—the appropriate module should be selected
depending on the type of sample of the tested material and the results sought:
- Compression;
- Tension;
- Shear;
- Crack resistance;
- Dynamic friction;
- Hardness (penetration);
- Bauschinger effect;
- Brazilian test (splitting test).
The main focus of this review in Section 4 is the compilation of selected experiments
using the compression module through dynamic testing using the split Hopkinson pressure
bar in the 1D configuration. The 1D configuration is more often used and more common in
various universities/research centers around the world than the 3D configuration—it can
be noticed by comparing the highlights/abstracts from Section 4. The limitations of using
the Hopkinson technique are shown in Table 1—the key is the strain rate expected to be
obtained by the researcher. For Hopkinson’s technique, the strain rate range is between
the values 102 –104 s−1 . In order to determine the mechanical properties of the tested soil
sample in other ranges of the strain rate, a different test stand should be used:
- For the range ultra-high strain rate 104 –108 s−1 —Taylor impact/plate impact;
- For the range medium strain rate 100 –100 s−1 —hydraulic devices;
- For the range quasi-static and creep and stress relaxation strain rate 100 –10−8 s−1 —
conventional cross-head devices.
Experimental research taking into account the ranges of the strain rate is summarized
in Tables 1 and 2.
Analyzing critically the observations and achievements of the publications presented
in Section 4, attention should be paid mainly to:
(a) The type of soil used in the tested samples
There is a greater tendency to conduct research in non-cohesive types of soil (mainly
sandy) than in cohesive soils:
- Quartz sand—a particularly good analysis was performed in [75], where the conclu-
sion is valuable that before full water-saturated (below 7.5%), additional water did
not result in the stiffness of the loose soil. However, after full water-saturated (above
7.5%), additional water in the soil pores increased the stiffness of the loose soil;
- Calcareous sand—a very good analysis was performed in [78], where a valuable note
is that after exceeding a certain limit value of the dynamic load, the influence of the
initial pressure on the dynamic mechanical properties of the calcareous sand sample
was reduced;
- Carbonate sand—a particularly good analysis was performed in [79], where the
important conclusion is that the fracture mechanism depends on the level of stress
values—the mechanism takes the form of attrition and abrasion for low stress values,
but the mechanism for high stress values is fracture;
- Volcanic sand—a particularly valuable analysis was performed in [81], with a con-
clusion that a sample with a high percentage of water in the pores (water-saturated
sample) has a significant dynamic reaction—water behaves like an incompressible ma-
terial at the moment of dynamic impact, and there is a visible increase in the stiffness
phenomenon at the strain of volcanic sand sample;
- Coral sand—a particularly good analysis was performed in [82], where an important
observation is that the susceptibility of a given type of coral sand to the strain rate is
significantly dependent and related to the internal structure of grains, soil pores and
the phenomenon of inter-particle friction;
Materials 2022, 15, 274 22 of 29
- Silty sand—a particularly valuable analysis was performed in [71], where a unique
element of the work was that it carried out and showed the results through a particle
size distribution test curve for two different types of silty sand samples subjected to
the same bar-projectile impact.
Particularly valuable are comparative analyses of dynamic research of two or more
types of soil:
- In [74], the soil quasi-spherical Ottawa sand, sub-grained Euroquartz Siligran and
polyhedral grain-shaped Q-Rok research was conducted, where an innovative achieve-
ment of this work is the determination of the effect of intergranular friction on the
example of Euroquartz sand with a polymer coating;
- Dynamic calcareous and silica sand studies were performed in [77], where the impor-
tant conclusion is that experimental soils show opposite behavior in terms of particle
size—the larger the particle size, the more noticeable is the opposite process of changes
in the void ratio and friction angle as a result of different inter-particle voids and
mineral composition in these samples.
On the other hand, a smaller tendency for experiments is visible for cohesive soils;
nevertheless, the results are equally important for tests in non-cohesive soils. In [80],
dynamic studies of silty clay were performed, where it is worth noting the conclusion that
there is a dependence that the higher the value of the axial compressive stress ratio, the
stronger the result of the destruction process on the shear surface—for an axial compressive
stress ratio of 1.0, the crush failure variant follows.
(b) The level of water content in the tested soil sample
Many experiments cited in this paper showed the influence of water content in the
sample on the dynamic mechanical properties of the soil. In all analyzed studies, it was
observed that such a dependence of the influence of water in the sample on the results of
dynamic soil behavior is true. In the vast majority of studies, the situations between the dry
state of the sample and the state of full water saturation in the sample are compared [72].
Experiments with soil samples with several levels of water content are also valuable—in
the work of [71], samples with four different levels of water content were tested, where
these values were related to the optimal humidity. It can be seen that the level of optimal
humidity is a clear border of the different dynamic responses of the non-cohesive soil
sample. It is valuable to compare the dynamic reaction of the soil for extreme situations—a
dry sample and a sample fully saturated with water. In [72], the key conclusion is that the
compacted sand in the variant of complete saturation with water achieves weaker results
of shear properties; nevertheless, significant values are still maintained for the dynamic
impact interaction velocity. Additionally, in [73], it is important to conclude that sand with
partial water saturation depending on the stress–strain reaction shows stiffness increasing
together with the initial density of the dry sand sample before water lock-up and stiffness
decreases with increasing water saturation in the sample.
(c) Non-standard temperature conditions of the soil sample
As a result of the ongoing climate change, it is crucial to understand soil characteristics,
including soil dynamic properties, in various temperature ranges inside the soil sample.
The main focus of the research area is focused on experiments with a frozen soil sample.
A valuable observation was obtained in [89] that during the test of a frozen soil sample
with a dynamic load caused by a bar impact, the shear fracture phenomenon appears near
the elastic limit. As a result, the ability of water to maintain bearing capacity (in frozen
form—ice) in the pores of the soil is significantly lost. In the area of research with non-
standard soil temperature, experiments as part of the complex freezing–thawing process
are of particular importance. In [88], unique tests of subjecting a soil sample to dynamic
action after carrying out freeze–thaw cycles were performed. The important conclusions
from the experiment were that the greater the number of freeze–thaw cycles, the lower the
maximum stress values in the soil sample, and the lower the sample temperature in the
freeze–thaw cycle, the lower the maximum stress values achieved.
Materials 2022, 15, 274

Another research path that allows for dynamic soil experiments 23 of 29
is the
using the Hopkinson technique in a 3D configuration—triaxial Hopkinson
tion [90] presents the original version of the research using the Hopkinson te
Another research path
three-dimensional SHPBthat allows for dynamic
test stand. soil experiments
The difference is the
of the possibility
SHPB testofstand be
using the Hopkinson technique in a 3D configuration—triaxial Hopkinson bar. Publica-
and[90]
tion 3Dpresents
configuration
the original is thatof1D
version the is one-dimensional
research using the Hopkinsondynamic impact and
technique—the
pressure dynamic
three-dimensional SHPBimpact.
test stand. The difference of the SHPB test stand between the
1D andUsing
3D configuration is that 1D is one-dimensional
a rigid confining casing allows dynamic
one to impact and 3Dais situation
achieve limited- wh
pressure dynamic impact.
strain
Usingvalues
a rigidare zero. casing
confining In this 3D one
allows configuration, there where
to achieve a situation is antheadditional
radial ba
which
strain contacts
values directly
are zero. In this and perpendicularly
3D configuration, there is with the surface
an additional of rigid
bar—radial bar, confi
which contacts directly
accordance with Figure 26.and perpendicularly with the surface of rigid confining casing in
accordance with Figure 26.
Figure 26. Diagram of the three-dimensional SHPB test stand (reprinted from Ref. [90]).
Figure 26. Diagram of the three-dimensional SHPB test stand (reprinted from Ref. [
The equipment in the 3D configuration consists of: two axial measuring bars (initiating
bar and The equipment
transmitting bar), in theallow
which 3D configuration
one to measure the consists
forces andof:displacements
two axial measurinof
the measuring bars axially in the X direction, and an additional one in the 3D radial bar
ing bar and transmitting bar), which allow one to measure the forces and d
configuration in the Y direction, which allows one to perform a radial stress measurement
of the the
during measuring
experiment.bars The axially in the Xof direction,
main advantage and an was
the 3D configuration additional one in the
indicated—it
configuration
enables in theand
the measurement Y direction, which allows
obtaining a comprehensive one to perform
three-dimensional a radial
soil reaction to stress
the dynamic impact. The dynamic response is more extensive compared to the classic 1D
during the experiment. The main advantage of the 3D configuration was
SHPB configuration. Publications [91,92] show another advantage of the 3D configuration
enables
as the measurement
the widespread andofobtaining
use of this variant the experiment a comprehensive
to measure the shear three-dimensiona
strength of
atosoil
the dynamic impact. The dynamic response is more extensive
sample. It is possible to determine the dynamic characteristics of the soil compared
response
to HSR. An example of research on the dynamic behavior of sand samples (in conditions
1D SHPB configuration. Publications [91,92] show another advantage of th
without drainage) was used to determine the influence of strain rate in the stress–strain
ration The
relation. as main
the result
widespread use of advantage
shows an additional this variant of thisof the experiment
configuration and indicates to meas
strength
that of a soil
the dynamic sample.
response It issample
of the soil possible to determine
as a stress–strain theis dynamic
relation more sensitive characteris
to
the adopted pressure value in the test and not very sensitive to the level of loading rates. The
response to HSR. An example of research on the dynamic behavior of san
final results in the 3D configuration may be the basis for the development of a constitutive
conditions
model without
of this soil drainage)
as a result of taking intowas used
account theto determine
triaxial the
stress state. influence
Publication [93] of stra
stress–strain relation. The main result shows an additional advantage
shows a diagram of a triaxial Hopkinson bar test stand (Figure 27). The equipment is a of this
research system that allows one to perform dynamic experiments in the uniaxial, biaxial and
and indicates that the dynamic response of the soil sample as a stress–str
triaxial variants. It is worth noting that the bars are used as three pairs of test bars in three
more sensitive
perpendicular to the
directions X, adopted
Y and Z. In pressure
the X direction,valuea setinofthe test and
measuring barsnot very sensiti
(initiating
of loading
and rates.
transmitting) The
in the 1D final resultsis in
configuration the 3D
normally configuration
located. mayare
In addition, there bebars
the basis
in the Y and Z directions—at their ends, there are load cylinders that limit the pressure in
opment of a constitutive model of this soil as a result of taking into accou
the bars. Figure 28 presents a schematic process of wave propagation: (a) a standard for 1D
stress state.isPublication
configuration [93] shows
provided: ε I —initiating wave,aεdiagram of a triaxial Hopkinson bar test
R —reflected wave, ε T —transmitting wave;
27). The equipment is a researchy1 system
and (b) additional for 3D configuration: ε and ε y2 that allows
—confining wave.one to perform dynami
in the uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial variants. It is worth noting that the ba
three pairs of test bars in three perpendicular directions X, Y and Z. In the
set of measuring bars (initiating and transmitting) in the 1D configuratio
located. In addition, there are bars in the Y and Z directions—at their ends,
cylinders that limit the pressure in the bars. Figure 28 presents a schema
wave propagation: (a) a standard for 1D configuration is provided: 𝜀𝐼 —in
𝜀𝑅 —reflected wave, 𝜀𝑇 —transmitting wave; and (b) additional for 3D conf
and 𝜀𝑦2 —confining wave.
Materials 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 o
Materials 2022, 15, 274 24 of 29
Figure27.27.
Figure Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of theofHopkinson
the Hopkinson bartest
bar triaxial triaxial
standtest stand from
(reprinted (reprinted from Ref. [93
Ref. [93]).
Figure 27. Schematic diagram of the Hopkinson bar triaxial test stand (reprinted from Ref. [93])
Figure Schematic
Figure28.28. Schematic wave propagation
wave processprocess
propagation in 3D configuration (reprinted from
in 3D configuration Ref. [93]).
(reprinted from Ref. [93])
Figure 28. Schematic wave propagation process in 3D configuration (reprinted from Ref. [93]).
The results of the experiments in the triaxial Hopkinson bar configuration expand the
researchThe results
scope of the experiments
of understanding the full and incomplex
the triaxial
dynamicHopkinson bar ofconfiguration
characteristics the tested exp
soil The
thesample, results
research of
scope
taking the experiments
intoofaccount
understanding in the
the full
the triaxial state triaxial
and in
of stress Hopkinson
complex bar
dynamic
the X, Y and configuration expa
characteristics o
Z directions.
the research
In the
tested soilworkscope
based
sample, oftaking
onunderstanding
the Hopkinson
into account the the
fulltriaxial
technique, and complex
an analysis
stateof ofdynamic
the dynamic
stress incharacteristics
the X, Yofand Zofd
behavior
tested
tions.insoil
soils, sample,
particular taking
sands, wasinto account
carried out as athe triaxial state
phenomenon of stress in the
of a “continuum” X, YThe
nature. and Z di
actual real behavior of soil (granular material) subjected to dynamic
tions. In the work based on the Hopkinson technique, an analysis of the dynamic beha influence is different—
the nature ofwork
In thein the phenomenon
basedsands, is related
on the to the particle interaction
Hopkinson process inofthe moment of behav
of soils,
contact. particular
The results was
of the multi-scale carriedoftechnique,
analysis out
dynamic
an analysis
as a behavior
phenomenon of sands
the
ofare dynamic
a “continuum”
published, na
of soils,
The actual
which
in particular
include real sands,
behavior
analyses
was
of soil
assessing
carried
the(granular
out as a
material)
extent to which
phenomenon
subjected
particle
of a “continuum”
to dynamicaffect
scale characteristics
natu
influence is
The actual
ferent—the
the real behavior
nature of of
dynamic interactions of
the soil (granular
thephenomenon
soil [94,95]. The material)
isimportant
related to subjected
the particle
features to dynamic
interaction
that affect influence
the dynamic processisin
ferent—the
response nature
momentofofthecontact. of the
soil include: phenomenon
The contact
resultsbehavior is related to
of sand grains,
of the multi-scale the particle
morphology
analysis interaction
and origin.
of dynamic behavior ofins
process
moment
are of contact.
published, The
which resultsanalyses
include of the multi-scale
assessing theanalysis
extentoftodynamic behavior
which particle of cha
scale sa
6. Conclusions
are published,
teristics affectwhich includeinteractions
the dynamic analyses assessing the[94,95].
extent to
of theexperimental
soil Thewhich particle
important scale char
features tha
The affect
teristics paper presents
the a literature
dynamic review of of
interactions crucial
the soil [94,95]. tests
The of strength proper-
important features that
fect the dynamic response of the soil include: contact behavior of sand grains,
ties of soils (both cohesive and non-cohesive) in the area of high strain rates (HSRs) for the morpho
fect
andthe
purpose
dynamic
origin. response of the soil include: contact behavior of sand grains, morpholo
of proper selection of structural design solutions for buildings, protective elements
and
and origin.
critical infrastructure. In these dynamic physics experiments, the split Hopkinson
pressure bar test stand is applicable.
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
The paper presents a literature review of crucial experimental tests of strength p
erties ofpaper
The presents
soils (both a literature
cohesive review of crucial
and non-cohesive) experimental
in the area of hightests of rates
strain strength pr
(HSRs
erties of soils (both
the purpose cohesive
of proper and of
selection non-cohesive) in thesolutions
structural design area of high strain ratesprotectiv
for buildings, (HSRs)
the purpose of proper selection of structural design solutions for buildings, protective
Materials 2022, 15, 274 25 of 29
The use of Hopkinson’s technique in experiments to determine the dynamic properties

of various materials, including cohesive and non-cohesive soils, is limited by the limited
range of the strain rate. In order to determine the full characteristics of a given material in
different strain rate ranges, tests should be performed based on other measuring devices,
e.g., conventional cross-head devices for the quasi-static range. Depending on the dynamic
mechanical properties tested and the expected results, it is necessary to select an appropriate
test module for measuring bars and sample sizes, e.g., compression, tension and shear. The
use of different test-type modules allows for more extended results.
The paper shows the SHPB test stand in 1D and 3D configuration. Sample diagrams are
provided which include an additional radial bar in direct contact with the rigid confining
casing and perpendicular to the other measuring bars (initiating and transmitting). The
main advantage of using the 3D configuration was indicated—the possibility to understand
the full triaxial dynamic response of the soil. The analyzed publications confirm the
conclusion of the results with the use of the SHPB in the 3D configuration—in the example
of sand, a very weak correlation of the initial density parameter value and the strain rate
value in the stress–strain relationship was shown, while a strong correlation of the pressure
level with the stress–strain relationship was demonstrated.
The paper presents a review of research patterns of physical experiments from 2018-
2021. The current research trends in the area of soils loaded with dynamic interaction as
a result of the application of the Hopkinson bar technique are presented. These studies
show that the dynamic response of the soil depends on various factors: density, cohesion,
moisture content and the grain structure of the soil specimen. Soils are sensitive to the strain
rate, e.g., their initial modulus is greater if the specimens are dynamically loaded with a
constant value of the strain rate and higher value of the initial density comparing these
values to specimens subjected to static loading and dynamic loading with a lower initial
density. Moreover, the thickened and saturated soil swells at a high strain rate. “Weaker”
soil response to dynamic loads is observed at lower strains with the state of incomplete
water saturation, while the “stiff” response occurs at higher strains related to the state of
full water saturation (noticeable influence of the water saturation level in the soil specimen).
There is also a noticeable increase in the number of SHPB experiments performed in both
1D and 3D versions under modified conditions (frozen/heated soil specimen, different
degree of water saturation of the soil specimen) in a wide range of strain rates, which
is a large field for further research. In order to determine the constitutive model of the
tested soil, it is necessary to extend the research with other equipment in order to be able to
determine all the required coefficients and frequencies of the adopted model.
Based on the conducted review of selected experiments with the use of the SHPB
test stand in order to determine the dynamic mechanical properties of soil samples, it is
possible to notice development trends in this area. It is evident in the 2018–2021 period
under investigation that SHPB experiments are carried out in various universities/research
centers around the world on many types of cohesive and non-cohesive soil samples—there
is a greater research tendency for non-cohesive soil, in particular: quartz sand, calcareous
sand, carbonate sand, volcanic sand, coral sand and silty sand. The most common variable
in the research is the change in the water content in the soil sample—the research mainly
analyzed the dynamic behavior of the soil in extreme moisture cases: dry soil and soil fully
saturated with water. Less frequently, the investigators analyzed the dynamic behavior of
the soil for several step changes in the water content levels in the sample (together with the
determination of the optimal moisture value).
Based on the conducted review of experiments, the probable prospect of research
development can be defined as:
- Further research work based on the SHPB test stand in the 1D configuration for various
types of cohesive and non-cohesive soils (in particular for less common types of soil,
which are insufficiently tested so far);
Materials 2022, 15, 274 26 of 29
- Increasing the number of SHPB test stands in 3D configuration at universities/scientific

institutions in the world in order to understand the full triaxial behavior of dynamic
soil;
- Due to the advancing climate change in the world, it will be necessary to further
understand the dynamic properties of various soils under non-standard temperature
conditions and conduct research using the Hopkinson technique for heated and frozen
soil samples (in particular, experiments are valuable where the sample is tested in
freeze–thaw cycles).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.S. and L.K.; methodology, K.S. and L.K.; formal analysis,
K.S. and R.C.; investigation, K.S.; resources, K.S. and R.R.; data curation, K.S. and R.R.; writing—
original draft preparation, K.S.; writing—review and editing, K.S., R.C. and L.K.; visualization,
K.S.; supervision, R.C. and L.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data available in a publicly accessible repository.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community; Office of the Director of National Intelligence: McLean, VA, USA, 2021.
2. The World Climate and Security Report; International Military Council On Climate And Security: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2021.
3. The Global Risks Report; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN 978-2-940631-24-7.
4. Falta, J.; Zlámal, P.; Adorna, M. Instrumentation of Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar for testing of cellular metallic materials. Acta
Polytech. 2018, 18, 10–14. [CrossRef]
5. Adorna, M.; Zlámal, P.; Fíla, T.; Falta, J.; Felten, M.; Fries, M.; Jung, A. Testing of hybrid nickel-polyurethane foams at high
strain-rates using Hopkinson bar and digital image correlation. Acta Polytech. 2018, 18, 72–76. [CrossRef]
6. Markovsky, P.E.; Janiszewski, J.; Bondarchuk, V.I.; Stasyuk, O.O.; Savvakin, D.G.; Skoryk, M.A.; Cieplak, K.; Dziewit, P.;
Prikhodko, S.V. Effect of Strain Rate on Microstructure Evolution and Mechanical Behavior of Titanium-Based Materials. Metals
2020, 10, 1404. [CrossRef]
7. Panowicz, R.; Janiszewski, J.; Kochanowski, K. Effects of Sample Geometry Imperfections on the Results of Split Hopkinson
Pressure Bar Experiments. Exp. Tech. 2019, 43, 397–403. [CrossRef]
8. Moćko, W.; Kostrzewski, C.; Brodecki, A. Influence of anisotropy on the viscoplastic properties of a hot rolled ti6al4v titanium
alloy. Arch. Metall. Mater. 2018, 63, 403–411. [CrossRef]
9. Bragov, A.M.; Konstantinov, A.; Lomuniv, A.K.; Stolyarov, V.V.; Kuznetsov, A.V.; Smakovsky, M.S.; Savenkov, G.G. Features
of Dynamic Deformation and Failure of Aluminum Bronze Processed by Laser Surface Treatment. J. Dyn. Behav. Mater. 2021.
[CrossRef]
10. Tang, W.; Kang, S.; Liu, Z. Dynamic Compression Deformation and Constitutive Model of Extruded Mg–1Zn–2Y Bar. Trans.
Indian Inst. Met. 2021, 74, 2967–2975. [CrossRef]
11. Chen, G.; Ge, J.; Lu, L.; Liu, J.; Ren, C. Mechanism of ultra-high-speed cutting of Ti-6Al-4V alloy considering time-dependent
microstructure and mechanical behaviors. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 113, 193–213. [CrossRef]
12. Golasiński, K.M.; Janiszewski, J.; Sienkiewicz, J.; Płociński, T.; Zubko, M.; Świec, P.; Pieczyńska, E. Quasi-Static and Dynamic
Compressive Behavior of Gum Metal: Experiment and Constitutive Model. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2021, 52, 4558–4571. [CrossRef]
13. Su, G.; Liu, Y.; Xiao, X.; Du, J.; Zhang, P.; Shen, X. Influences of Stress State, Temperature, and Strain Rate on Ductility of Pure Iron.
J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2021, 30, 2036–2046. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, C.T.; He, Y.; Guo, Z.; Huang, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, H.; He, Y. Strain Rate Effects on the Mechanical Properties of an
AlCoCrFeNi High-Entropy Alloy. Met. Mater. Int. 2021, 27, 2310–2318. [CrossRef]
15. Simoncini, M.; Forcellese, A.; Mancini, E.; Chiappini, G.; Sasso, M. Experimental and numerical investigation on forming limit
curves of AA6082 aluminum alloy at high strain rates. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 112, 1973–1991. [CrossRef]
16. Sharma, S.; Samal, M.K. Experimental Investigation of Strain-Rate- and Temperature-Dependent Mechanical Properties of
SA516Gr.70 Steel and Development of an Appropriate Material Model. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2021, 30, 116–130. [CrossRef]
17. An, H.M.; Liu, L. Numerical study of dynamic behaviors of concrete under various strain rates. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2019, 65, 21–36.
[CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 274 27 of 29
18. Hu, S.; Tang, H.; Han, S. Energy Absorption Characteristics of PVC Coarse Aggregate Concrete under Impact Load. Int. J. Concr.
Struct. Mater. 2021, 15, 26. [CrossRef]
19. Wu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Yu, H.; Fang, Q.; Chen, L.; Yue, C. Experimental and mesoscopic investigation on the dynamic properties of
coral aggregate concrete in compression. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2021, 64, 1153–1166. [CrossRef]
20. He, Y.; Gao, M.; Xu, D.; Yu, X. Influence of Sub-zero Temperatures on the Dynamic Behaviour of Foam Concrete with Sand. KSCE
J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 25, 3843–3851. [CrossRef]
21. Wang, T.; Song, Z.; Yang, J.; Zhang, Q.; Cheng, Y. A Study of the Dynamic Characteristics of Red Sandstone Residual Soils Based
on SHPB Tests. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 25, 1705–1717. [CrossRef]
22. Yu, L.; Zhang, T.; Zhu, Z.; Su, H.; Fan, P.; Wang, Y. Physical and dynamic mechanical behaviors of marble after heat treatment in
quasi-vacuum and air-filled environments. J. Cent. South Univ. 2021, 28, 2770–2785. [CrossRef]
23. Huang, B.; Fu, S.; Xiao, Y. Uniaxial Compressive Behavior of Granite at High Strain Rates. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2021, 54,
4695–4721. [CrossRef]
24. Ke, B.; Zhang, C.; Liu, C.; Ding, L.; Zheng, Y.; Li, N.; Wang, Y.; Lin, H. An experimental study on characteristics of impact
compression of freeze–thawed granite samples under four different states considering moisture content and temperature
difference. Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 80, 661. [CrossRef]
25. Majedi, M.R.; Afrazi, M.; Fakhimi, A. A Micromechanical Model for Simulation of Rock Failure under High Strain Rate Loading.
Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 19, 501–515. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, S.; Xiong, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Du, K.; Cui, Y.; Khandelwal, M. Stress–strain relationship of sandstone under confining
pressure with repetitive impact. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-Energy Geo-Resour. 2021, 7, 39. [CrossRef]
27. Zhu, Q.; Li, D.; Han, Z.; Xiao, P.; Li, B. Failure characteristics of brittle rock containing two rectangular holes under uniaxial
compression and coupled static-dynamic loads. Acta Geotech. 2021. [CrossRef]
28. Zhao, Z.; Wu, B.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, W. Impact strength characteristics of granite under combined dynamic and static loading
conditions. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 105. [CrossRef]
29. Zhao, H.; Liu, C.; Zhang, J.; Ge, L. Breakage behavior of gravel rock particles under impact force. Comput. Part. Mech. 2021, 8,
1075–1087. [CrossRef]
30. Li, M.; Mao, X.; Cao, L.; Pu, H. Influence of Heating Rate on the Dynamic Mechanical Performance of Coal Measure Rocks. Int. J.
Geomech. 2017, 17, 04017020. [CrossRef]
31. Xu, J.; Kang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X. Dynamic Mechanical Behavior of Granite under the Effects of Strain Rate and Temperature.
Int. J. Geomech. 2020, 20, 04019177. [CrossRef]
32. Huang, J.; Xu, S.; Hu, S. Effects of grain size and gradation on the dynamic responses of quartz sands. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2013, 59,
1–10. [CrossRef]
33. Luo, H.; Cooper, W.L.; Lu, H. Effects of particle size and moisture on the compressive behavior of dense Eglin sand under
confinement at high strain rates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2014, 65, 40–55. [CrossRef]
34. Bragov, A.M.; Kotov, V.L.; Lomunov, A.K.; Sergeichev, I.V. Measurement of the Dynamic Characteristics of Soft Soils Using the
Kolsky Method. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2004, 45, 580–585. [CrossRef]
35. Song, B.; Chen, W.; Luk, V. Impact compressive response of dry sand. Mech. Mater. 2009, 41, 777–785. [CrossRef]
36. Frew, D.J.; Forrestal, M.J.; Chen, W. Pulse shaping techniques for testing brittle materials with a split hopkinson pressure bar. Exp.
Mech. 2002, 42, 93–106. [CrossRef]
37. Bragov, A.M.; Grushevsky, G.M.; Lomunov, A.K. Use of the Kolsky method for confined tests of soft soils. Exp. Mech. 1996, 36,
237–242. [CrossRef]
38. Charlie, W.; Ross, C.; Pierce, S. Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar Testing of Unsaturated Sand. Geotech. Test. J. 1990, 13, 291–300.
[CrossRef]
39. Luo, H.; Lu, H.; Cooper, W.L.; Komanduri, R. Effect of Mass Density on the Compressive Behavior of Dry Sand under Confinement
at High Strain Rates. Exp. Mech. 2011, 51, 1499–1510. [CrossRef]
40. Parab, N.D.; Claus, B.; Hudspeth, M.C.; Black, J.T.; Mondal, A.; Sun, J.; Fezzaa, K.; Xiao, X.; Luo, S.N.; Chen, W. Experimental
assessment of fracture of individual sand particles at different loading rates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2014, 68, 8–14. [CrossRef]
41. Junyu, H.; Songlin, X.; Shisheng, H. Influence of particle breakage on the dynamic compression responses of brittle granular
materials. Mech. Mater. 2014, 68, 15–28. [CrossRef]
42. Martin, B.E.; Chen, W.; Song, B.; Akers, S.A. Moisture effects on the high strain-rate behavior of sand. Mech. Mater. 2009, 41,
786–798. [CrossRef]
43. Wils, L.; Van Impe, P.O.; Haegeman, W. One-dimensional compression of a crushable sand in dry and wet conditions. In Conference:
Geomechanics from Micro to Macro; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2015; pp. 1403–1408. ISBN 978-1-138-02707-7.
44. Sobczyk, K.; Kruszka, L.; Chmielewski, R.; Rekucki, R. Performance characteristics of Hopkinson’s set-up pneumatic launcher.
Acta Polytech. 2021, 61, 552–561. [CrossRef]
45. Zhu, Z.W.; Tang, W.R.; Kang, G.Z. Dynamic Deformation of Frozen Soil at a High Strain Rate: Experiments and Damage-Coupled
Constitutive Model. Acta Mech. Solida Sin. 2021, 34, 895–910. [CrossRef]
46. Ma, D.; Xiang, H.; Ma, Q.; Kaunda, E.E.; Huang, K.; Su, Q.; Yao, Z. Dynamic Damage Constitutive Model of Frozen Silty Soil with
Prefabricated Crack under Uniaxial Load. J. Eng. Mech. 2021, 147. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 274 28 of 29
47. Chai, X.J.; Deng, K.; He, C.F.; Xiong, Y.F. Laboratory Model Tests on Consolidation Performance of Soil Column with Drained-
Timber Rod. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6698894. [CrossRef]
48. Ma, B.; Hu, Z.; Li, Z.; Cai, K.; Zhao, M.; He, C.; Chen, Q.; Chen, B.; Huang, H. A Three-Section-Settlement Calculation Method for
Composite Foundation Reinforced by Geogrid-Encased Stone Columns. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 5576713. [CrossRef]
49. Nurdin, S.; Sawada, K.; Moriguchi, S. Design Criterion of Reinforcement on Thick Soft Clay Foundations of Traditional
Construction Method in Indonesia. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2019; Volume 258, p. 03010.
[CrossRef]
50. Olson, S.J. Eisenhower Bridge North Abutment and Approach Settlement: A Case History of Timber Pile Downdrag and
Comparative Downdrag Effect on Steel Piles. In Proceedings of the Geo-Congress 2020: University of Minnesota 68th Annual
Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 25–28 February 2020. [CrossRef]
51. Bragov, A.M.; Igumnov, L.A.; Konstantinov, A.Y.; Kruszka, L.; Lamzin, D.A.; Lomunov, A.K. Methodological aspects of testing
brittle materials using the split Hopkinson bar technique. Strain 2021, 57, e12389. [CrossRef]
52. Ryzińska, G.; Gieleta, R. Effect of Test Velocity on the Energy Absorption under Progressive Crushing of Composite Tubes. Adv.
Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2020, 14, 94–102. [CrossRef]
53. Miedzińska, D.; Gieleta, R.; Małek, E. Experimental study of strength properties of SLA resins under low and high strain rates.
Mech. Mater. 2020, 141, 103245. [CrossRef]
54. Jiang, S.; Shen, L.; Guillard, F.; Einav, I. The effect of cement material properties on the fracture patterns developing within
cement-covered brittle sphere under impact. Acta Geotech. 2021, 16, 763–773. [CrossRef]
55. Zhang, S.; Wang, W.; Liu, K.; Gong, S.; Li, D.; Li, H. Dynamic behavior of coal under true triaxial prestressed by using a Hopkinson
bar. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 2094. [CrossRef]
56. Chen, J.; Tao, W.; Pang, S. Impact Testing of 3D Re-Entrant Honeycomb Polyamide Structure Using Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9882. [CrossRef]
57. Jakkula, P.; Ganzenmueller, G.; Beisel, S.; Hiermaier, S. Investigating slow shock in low-impedance materials using a direct impact
Hopkinson bar setup. In EPJ Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2021; Volume 250, p. 06009. [CrossRef]
58. Deng, Y.J.; Chen, H.; Chen, X.W.; Yao, Y. Dynamic failure behaviour analysis of TiB2-B4C ceramic composites by split Hopkinson
pressure bar testing. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 7. [CrossRef]
59. Ishihara, K. Soil Behavior in Earthquake Geotechnics. In Oxford Engineering Science Series; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK,
1996; Volume 46, ISBN 978-0198562245.
60. Suescun-Florez, E.; Omidvar, M.; Iskander, M.; Bless, S. Review of High Strain Rate Testing of Granular Soils. Geotech. Test. J. 2015,
38, 20140267. [CrossRef]
61. Field, J.E.; Walley, S.M.; Proud, W.G.; Goldrein, H.T.; Siviour, C.R. Review of experimental techniques for high rate deformation
and shock studies. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2004, 30, 725–775. [CrossRef]
62. Blitterswyk, J.; Fletcher, L.; Pierron, F. Characterisation of the Interlaminar Properties of Composites at High Strain Rates: A
Review. Adv. Exp. Mech. 2017, 2, 3–28. [CrossRef]
63. Siviour, C.R.; Jordan, J.L. High Strain Rate Mechanics of Polymers: A Review. J. Dyn. Behav. Mater. 2016, 2, 15–32. [CrossRef]
64. Gray, G.T. High-Strain-Rate Deformation—Mechanical Behavior and Deformation Substructures Induced. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.
2012, 42, 285–303. [CrossRef]
65. Omidvar, M.; Iskander, M.; Bless, S. Stress-strain behavior of sand at high strain rates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2012, 49, 192–213.
[CrossRef]
66. Mishra, S.; Chakraborty, T.; Basu, D. High Strain Rate Stress-Strain Response of Soils—A Review. Jpn. Geotech. Soc. Spec. Publ.
2015, 3, 80–85. [CrossRef]
67. Siviour, C.; Kendall, M.J. Understanding High Rate Behavior through Low Rate Analog. In Materials Science, Final Report;
Oxford University Department of Engineering Science: Oxford, UK, 2014.
68. Prusty, G.B.; Banerjee, A. Structure–Property Correlation and Constitutive Description of Structural Steels during Hot Working
and Strain Rate Deformation. Materials 2020, 13, 556. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Pajak,
˛ M. Dynamic response of SFRC under different strain rates—An overview of test results. In Proceedings of the 7th Interna-
tional Conference Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and Masonry Structures, Kraków, Poland, 5–7 June 2011.
70. Sobczyk, K.; Chmielewski, R.; Kruszka, L. The concept of experimental research on the behavior of sand cover material for
protective shelters for civilians. Saf. Eng. Anthropog. Objects 2020, 1, 11–16. [CrossRef]
71. Chmielewski, R.; Kruszka, L.; Rekucki, R.; Sobczyk, K. Experimental investigation of dynamic behavior of silty sand. Arch. Civ.
Eng. 2021, LXVII, 481–498. [CrossRef]
72. Bragov, A.M.; Balandin, V.V.; Igumnov, L.A.; Kotov, V.L.; Kruszka, L.; Lomunov, A.K. Impact and penetration of cylindrical bodies
into dry and water-saturated sand. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2018, 122, 197–208. [CrossRef]
73. Wang, S.; Shen, L.; Maggi, F.; El-Zein, A.; Nguyen, G.D.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, Z. Influence of dry density and confinement
environment on the high strain rate response of partially saturated sand. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2018, 116, 65–78. [CrossRef]
74. De Cola, F.; Pellegrino, A.; Glößner, C.; Penumadu, D.; Petrinic, N. Effect of Particle Morphology, Compaction, and Confinement
on the High Strain Rate Behavior of Sand. Exp. Mech. 2018, 58, 223–242. [CrossRef]
75. Barr, A.D.; Clarke, S.D.; Tyas, A.; Warren, J.A. Effect of Moisture Content on High Strain Rate Compressibility and Particle
Breakage in Loose Sand. Exp. Mech. 2018, 58, 1331–1334. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 274 29 of 29
76. Lv, Y.; Liu, J.; Xiong, Z. One-dimensional dynamic compressive behavior of dry calcareous sand at high strain rates. J. Rock Mech.
Geotech. Eng. 2019, 11, 192–201. [CrossRef]
77. Lv, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zuo, D. Effects of particle size on dynamic constitutive relation and energy absorption of calcareous sand. Powder
Technol. 2019, 356, 21–30. [CrossRef]
78. Wen, S.; Zhang, C.; Chang, Y.; Hu, P. Dynamic compression characteristics of layered rock mass of significant strength changes in
adjacent layers. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2019, 12, 353–365. [CrossRef]
79. Xiao, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Chu, J.; Liu, H.; Huang, J.; Luo, S.N.; Wang, S.; Lin, J. Particle breakage and energy dissipation of carbonate
sands under quasi-static and dynamic compression. Acta Geotech. 2019, 14, 1741–1755. [CrossRef]
80. Ma, D.; Ma, Q.; Yao, Z.; Yuan, P.; Zhang, R. Dynamic Mechanical Properties and Failure Mode of Artificial Frozen Silty Clay
Subject to One-Dimensional Coupled Static and Dynamic Loads. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1–9. [CrossRef]
81. Varley, L.; Rutherford, M.E.; Zhang, L.; Pellegrino, A. The Mechanical Response of Wet Volcanic Sand to Impact Loading, Effects
of Water Content and Initial Compaction. J. Dyn. Behav. Mater. 2020, 6, 358–372. [CrossRef]
82. Dong, K.; Ren, H.; Ruan, W.; Ning, H.; Guo, R.; Huang, K. Study on strain rate effect of coral sand. Explos. Shock. Waves 2020,
40, 093102. [CrossRef]
83. Zhao, Z.; Qiu, Y.; Zi, M.; Xing, H.; Wang, M. Experimental study on dynamic compression of unsaturated calcareous sand. Explos.
Shock. Waves 2020, 40, 023102. [CrossRef]
84. Lv, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, Y. Particle breakage of calcareous sand at high strain rates. Powder Technol. 2020, 366, 776–787. [CrossRef]
85. Zhang, F.; Zhu, Z.; Fu, T.; Jia, J. Damage mechanism and dynamic constitutive model of frozen soil under uniaxial impact loading.
Mech. Mater. 2020, 140, 103217. [CrossRef]
86. Zhu, Z.; Fu, T.; Zhou, Z.; Cao, C. Research on Ottosen constitutive model of frozen soil under impact load. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 2021, 137, 104544. [CrossRef]
87. Li, T.; Li, G.; Ding, Y.; Kong, T.; Liu, J.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, N. Impact response of unsaturated sandy soil under triaxial stress. Int. J.
Impact Eng. 2021, 160, 104062. [CrossRef]
88. Li, B.; Zhu, Z.; Ning, J.; Li, T.; Zhou, Z. Viscoelastic–plastic constitutive model with damage of frozen soil under impact loading
and freeze–thaw loading. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2021, 214, 106890. [CrossRef]
89. Jia, J.; Tang, H.; Chen, H. Dynamic Mechanical Properties and Energy Dissipation Characteristics of Frozen Soil under Passive
Confined Pressure. Acta Mech. Solida Sin. 2021, 34, 184–203. [CrossRef]
90. Semblat, J.F.; Luong, P.; Gary, G. 3D-Hopkinson Bar: New Experiments for Dynamic Testing on Soils. Soil Found. 1999, 39, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
91. Martin, B.E.; Kabir, M.E.; Chen, W. Undrained high-pressure and high strain-rate response of dry sand under triaxial loading. Int.
J. Impact Eng. 2013, 54, 51–63. [CrossRef]
92. Kabir, M.E.; Chen, W.W. Dynamic Triaxial Test on Sand. Dyn. Behav. Mater. 2011, 1, 7–8. [CrossRef]
93. Liu, K.; Zhang, Q.B.; Wu, G.; Li, J.C.; Zhao, J. Dynamic Mechanical and Fracture Behaviour of Sandstone Under Multiaxial Loads
Using a Triaxial Hopkinson Bar. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2019, 52, 2175–2195. [CrossRef]
94. Casante, G.; Santamarina, J.C. Interparticle Contact Behavior and Wave Propagation. J. Geotech. Eng. 1996, 122, 831–839.
[CrossRef]
95. Senetakis, K.; Payan, M.; Li, H.; Zamanian, M. Nonlinear stiffness and damping characteristics of gravelly crushed rock:
Developing generic curves and attempting multi-scale insights. Transp. Geotech. 2021, 31, 100668. [CrossRef]

Sobczyk, 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sobczyk, 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

materials

Materials 2022, 15, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010274 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

2. Strain Rate Ranges

Table 1. List of ranges of strain rate and experimental techniques.

Strain Rate (s−1 ) Experimental Techniques

Strain Rate (𝐬 −𝟏 ) Experimental Techniques

Equation to determine strain ε(t) as a function of time:

Materials 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 4. Cylindrical soil specimen in casing/tube (reprinted from Ref. [71]).

Materials 2022, 15, 274

Materials 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 29

Materials 2022, 15, 274

The use of Hopkinson’s technique in experiments to determine the dynamic properties

- Increasing the number of SHPB test stands in 3D configuration at universities/scientific

You might also like